Re: Another comment about confidence value.


> Nils Ulltveit-Moe wrote:
> The conclusion so far, is also that we do indeed need to be able 
> to represent the confidence value of the test result.

> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> it that there really is a good reason for having confidence, 
> although I think it should be optional. I also think that it is 
> important that confidence values state what ther scale is 
> themselves.
> This is the basis of my interoperability concern, and the reason 
> I wondered if we wanted it at all. Whatever range of values we 
> pick isn't nearly as important as the actual process used to 
> assign a confidence rating to a particular result. So I would 
> like to model the result as a blank node, and the confidence as 
> a datatype.

Yes, the confidence property seems to me to be very important too. And I agree that the process model of assigning the value is probably even more important than the value itself. However, it is a big concern to me if we do not a define a datatype. At the most, may be a couple of values with some sort of conversion scheme between them but I think we are going to get really big interoperability problems if we do not define values.

Also, I'm not really sure if the confidence property should be optional, to me that depends on the process to calculate it.


Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 11:42:43 UTC