Response to "Addendum for the TBM global distance measure for the association of uncertain combat ID declarations" by B. Ristic, M.C. Florea and E. Boissé

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2014.02.007 1566-2535/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Recently, an addendum [1] is published to correct two typographical errors introduced in [2]. The errors introduced, in the paper, concerned the definition of Euclidean distance and Bhattacharya distance in the context of the belief function theory. The aim of this addendum is to correct and to stop propagating those errors in future related publications. We would thank the authors for this laudable idea. However in this addendum, Ristic et al. have unfairly and so inappropriately mentioned one of our paper [3] in stating that we have re-used the expression for the distance measures listed in [2]. It is worth of mention that we did not use the mistaken formula in our works. We just have referenced the initial paper as a distance work without any detail or reference to the mistaken formula. Furthermore, another work, providing the correct expression of the Euclidean distance, is also quoted [4]. In our proposition [3], Jousselme’s distance [5] is used thus the obtained results should not be called into question.