On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:17:22PM -0800, Gary O'Neall wrote: > > binary-confidence-expression-operator = "AND" > > confidence-expression = license-expression space "CONFIDENCE" space "0." > > 1*DIGIT > > confidence-list = confidence-expression *(space confidence-expression) > > [space license-expression] > > / confidence-list space > > binary-confidence-expression-operator space confidence-list > > / license-expression > > [G.O.] My preference is for the "OR-MAYBE" approach just due to the > simplicity. In the audit use case, it is difficult to assign a > confidence that has any precision. The weighting would work for a > tool where there is some algorithm that results in a weighting or > confidence measure.
I agree that getting consistent confidence numbers is going to be hard, and that without that (and maybe even with that), confidence weights may not be very useful. But with two license tools returning confidence-weighted alternatives, I want to make sure we understand their intended use cases before we commit to backwards-compat for a binary OR-MAYBE. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
