- From: Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:07:50 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Cc: "public-wai-ert@w3.org" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Charles We are considering using the <earl:confidence> parameter in heuristic checks based on machine learning techniques like bayesian networks or learning automata that will answer Fail, Pass or notApplicable with some probabilistic confidence. It the algorithm is reasonably confident that it has the correct answer, then manuan check may not be applicable. If not, then a manual check may be used as feedback, also to improve the system in come cases. That will make large scale assessments more feasable. Mvh. Nils tor, 14,.04.2005 kl. 00.33 +1000, skrev Charles McCathieNevile: > Hi folks, > > in the current EARL spec there are results which look like the following: > > <earl:result rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <earl:validity rdf:resource="&earl;fail"/> > <earl:confidence rdf:resource="&earl;high"/> > <earl:message>malformed element in line 23</earl:message> > </earl:result> > > This makes it possible to put two result on the same Assertion - for > example to assert that they have a different probability, or the assertor > has a different level of conidence in them. > > <earl:result rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <earl:validity rdf:resource="&earl;notApplicable"/> > <earl:confidence rdf:resource="&earl;low"/> > <earl:message>malformed element in line 23</earl:message> > </earl:result> > > I am not sure if we want to maintain this possibility, but it provides a > feasible explanation of what I was copying when I wrote up my examples for > "EARL by example" [1], and it is how Hera currently produces EARL. > > Any thoughts? > > cheers > > Chaals > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/200311-earl/all > -- Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no>
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 15:03:55 UTC