Re: Another comment about confidence value.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:42:45 +0200, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

>> 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.

I think we are as likely to get interoperability problems by definng  
smethng as by not doing so - especially if we don't leave it optional.

But we do clearly need to explain how to define one - which among other  
things means reviewing the work coming out of the Semantic Web Best  
Practices group on how to define a datatype (that was left as a work item  
by the RDF core group, although the relevant task force is I think at the  
point of publishing a draft).

More when I am not rushing for another plane...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org

Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 12:34:12 UTC