- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:54:56 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Charles wrote: > This makes it possible to put two result on the same Assertion... > Nils wrote: > My conclusion is that maybe the confidence interval should not be > mandatory, but I think it should be optional in EARL. And it should be > modelled as a probability; i.e. an integer between 0 and 1. > I think these two ideas are related. We may have multiple results with different confidence levels. For example: <!-- fails with a low confidence --> <earl:result rdf:parseType="Resource"> <earl:validity rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL/nmg-strawman#fail"/> <earl:confidence rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL/nmg-strawman#low"/> </earl:result> <!-- passes with a confidence level of nils.5 --> <earl:result rdf:parseType="Resource"> <earl:validity rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL/nmg-strawman#pass"/> <earl:confidence rdf:resource="http://nils/.5"/> </earl:result> I agree that the confidence level should be optional. I think we should allow for multiple types of confidence. Cheers, Chris
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2005 07:54:59 UTC