Re: [emergency-comment] Proposed amendment to <certainty> values

[R. Allen Wyke <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>]

Are these your comments, or Public Comments (as they came across the 
Public list)? If yours, or you are simply passing on "public comments" 
that will be represented as yours (ie: you will serve as the person 
from which the comment was originally from in the TC), then please post 
on the regular list. If they are from a person in the public who wants 
to be identified as the source, then they should make the post.

The public list is for "members of the public", while members of the TC 
should use the regular list. Same comment as with your post regarding 
<category> as well. Since you are a member of the TC, I will go ahead 
and forward to the regular list.

Allen

On Mar 28, 2004, at 5:16 PM, Art Botterell wrote:

> The current values for the <certainty> element are accurate enough, 
> but they provide no mechanism for distinguishing actually observed 
> events from high-confidence forecasts.  This creates a bit of 
> dissonance, e.g., when a report of an actual earthquake that just 
> occurred is described as "Very Likely."  So I propose that the values 
> be changed to the following:
>
> 	Observed - Reported as actually having occurred by a credible source.
> 	Likely - Probability > ~50%
> 	Possible - Probability < = ~50%
> 	Unlikely - Probability ~ 0
> 	Unknown - Probability unknown
>
> This would have the effect of merging the existing "Very Likely" and 
> "Likely" categories, thus also getting rid of that single two-word 
> label.
>
> Alternatively, the "Observed" value could simply be added to the 
> existing scheme.
>
> - Art
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to 
> emergency-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
>