Re: Another comment about confidence value.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:33:33 +0200, Giorgio Brajnik  
<giorgio@dimi.uniud.it> wrote:

> I would suggest to consider confidence factors as probabilities  
> associated to assertions (like "this test has failed").

Yes, this is how i understand the confidence information, and I think what  
the general understanding is in the group.

The quetion is how to describe it. Some tests will have fairly clear and  
detailed confidence parameters, others won't. RDF allows us to say which  
is which, in our results, if we model the information correctly. Which  
means that when we are trying to compare confidence across different kinds  
of test results for the same problem, we can be clear about what we are  
comparing.

If we decide on one confidence scheme then we have to try to push  
everything to fit it, which doesn't seem sensible.

If we have multiple ones, then for any particular use case we need to  
define some relation between them, but we can still know in the results  
that they are different ones, and change the mappings at that time rather  
than lose the fact that they are different at the point where we record  
the results.

For example, if Chris uses "high, medium, low" and Giorgio uses a number  
 from 1 to 7 and Nils uses an integer from 0 to 100, I can map Chris'  
confidence to 1, 4 and 7 on Giorgio's scale and map that to some numbers  
 from Nils. Equally, I can decide to do a little more work and map some of  
Chris' results to 1, 4 and 7, some of them to 3, 5, 7 and some to 1, 3, 4  
according to what the test is...

Does this sound like what others are thinking?

cheers

Chaals

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

Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 17:47:57 UTC