Re: Closing discussion on More on result type="foo", confidence, ...

Hi Shadi

This discussion has gone around in a full circle. I am starting to bite
myself in the tail...

tor, 14,.04.2005 kl. 16.20 +0200, skrev Shadi Abou-Zahra:
> Hi,
> > A question in this case, is if the tool should have the 
> > possibility to report a fourth value in this case (I.e. 
> > "#DontKnow")
> The current spec defines <earl:cannotTell> as the fourth value. Is this
> what you mean?

Yes, <earl:cannotTell> is probably what I was looking for :-)

>From this discussion the <earl:cannotTell> value is the parameter that
lessens the need for having a confidence value parameter. It is then up
to the tool vendor to decide if the value is confident or not.

> > Modelled from this one could maybe have something like:
> > 
> > <earl:accurancy unit='percent' confidence='0.9'/>
> The problem is not really how the properties look like. Quite a couple
> of models have been suggested just recently on the list and they all
> seem to have pros and cons to them. To me, the problem is really how to
> derive values such as "high", "low", "30%", ".5", or "0.9". In my
> opinion, if there isn't a clear way of how to unambiguously calculate a
> value, then whatever property we come up with will not be interoperable
> between the tools and therefore will not be used (as the experience from
> the current spec shows).

If a confidence value is used, it should be modelled as float within
[0,1]. Percent is saying the same thing as parts of hundred.

I.e. from

<xsd:simpleType name='confidence'>
  <xsd:restriction base='float'>
    <xsd:maxInclusive value='1'/>
    <xsd:minInclusive value='0'/>

Nils Ulltveit-Moe <>

Received on Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:25:02 UTC