- From: Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:07:31 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Cc: Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>, public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Charles, I would suggest that confidence is interpreted as it is defined in statistics; i.e. as a probability which is a real number from and inclusive 0 and to and inclusive 1. If some applications want to map this basic definition to percentage or some other scheme, then they can define their own mappings, e.g. "low is confidence less than 0.3, medium is confidence between 0.3 and 0.7 and high is confidence greater than 0.7". or "Confidence percentage is probability times 100". Those implementors that need such mappings can provide customized RDF/OWL schema and constraints to give a unique interpretation for their specific applications. Using the probability is a generally accepted way of representing confidence values in most areas of science. Other representations can be derived from this. Mvh. Nils man, 18,.04.2005 kl. 19.47 +0200, skrev Charles McCathieNevile: > 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 > -- Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no>

Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 19:03:16 UTC