239 lines
9.8 KiB
Plaintext
239 lines
9.8 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.8;
|
|
access;
|
|
symbols;
|
|
locks; strict;
|
|
comment @# @;
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
date 2009.11.20.02.45.23; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.7;
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.6;
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
date 2006.05.04.11.26.28; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.5;
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
date 2004.08.18.11.13.02; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.4;
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
date 2004.06.21.11.30.00; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.3;
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
date 2004.06.09.21.50.19; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.2;
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
date 2004.05.28.17.24.06; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.1;
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
date 2003.12.15.14.54.59; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
desc
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1258685123" format="1.1" reprev="1.8" version="1.8"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
|
|
---+!! %TOPIC%
|
|
|
|
I do not like the current structure of Statistical measures.
|
|
|
|
For categorical states, we can define local states directly at a character, or we can define generic concepts states at the concept tree nodes. A concept can be color, with red, green, ... in the property tree, or fruit with capsule, berry, ... in the structure/part tree. These generic states (should we call them concept states?) can be reused at multiple characters. This not only saves definition work, it also allows to define a shape once, and thus allow an identification processor to abstract from the structure. If a fungus has sexual and asexual spores, one may not know which ones are currently present during the identification. Knowing that there is a concept "Spore shapes" would allow to search in any characters using this concept.
|
|
|
|
Importantly, categorical states only make sense as a set, and thus entire sets can be referenced.
|
|
|
|
Back to numerical:
|
|
|
|
Here we have an extra dimension to define project wide information for any use of mean, max, etc. in Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures. The <nop>StatisticalMeasure/Generalization can be used to make the measure concept fully interoperable. However, the project-wide definitions are necessary, otherwise we will not be able to add labels and wordings in other languages (German, Chinese, etc.)
|
|
|
|
However, we have nowhere a set of these, and they are not reusable as a set. You can not specify that for spore measurements you would like to use min, lower range as mean - s.d., mean, upper range as mean + s.d., max, and sample size, whereas for hyphal wall measures you simply record extremes (min to max).
|
|
|
|
Instead, we would have to add each measure to each state. That makes it impossible to provide a similar functionality as above envisaged for categorical states, looking at the generic concept of spore measure and finding all characters using this concept.
|
|
|
|
In previous schema versions we had the project wide ("global") measures defined in sets (1:n). However, this worked poorly since the mean or min/max will occur in many sets, as in the example above. The association between set and project-wide definition must be n:m. Currently it is removed completely.
|
|
|
|
Now what shall we do:
|
|
|
|
* Everything different, including the ResolvedTopicGenericStates for categorical stuff?
|
|
* Mirror the categorical solution for numerical? Does that include having
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures,
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>ConceptTrees/<nop>ConceptTree/Nodes/Concept/<nop>StatisticalMeasures, and
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>Characters/<nop>Character/Numerical/<nop>StatisticalMeasures?
|
|
* Or even also the auto-add-from contract?
|
|
|
|
Or should we be more stringent here and say: We do away with Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures and define them only at the (not yet existing!) Terminology/<nop>ConceptTrees/<nop>ConceptTree/Nodes/Concept/<nop>StatisticalMeasures? We would have to add the labels for min, max, mean several times, but the Generalization would allow applications to figure out that they are referring to the same concept.
|
|
|
|
Then, should we allow only complete sets in this case, rather than partial as in the case of the ResolvedTopicGenericStates?
|
|
|
|
I currently tend to favor the stringent solution, but I urgently would need a good discussion on this...
|
|
|
|
(return to SchemaDiscussionSDD09s)
|
|
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn - 15 Dec 2003, 9. June 2004
|
|
|
|
%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1092827582" from="SDD.StatisticalMeasureReuse" to="SDD.ClosedTopicStatisticalMeasureReuse"}%
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
log
|
|
@Added topic name via script
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
a4 2
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1146741988" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
|
|
d23 6
|
|
a28 6
|
|
* Everything different, including the ResolvedTopicGenericStates for categorical stuff?
|
|
* Mirror the categorical solution for numerical? Does that include having
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures,
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>ConceptTrees/<nop>ConceptTree/Nodes/Concept/<nop>StatisticalMeasures, and
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>Characters/<nop>Character/Numerical/<nop>StatisticalMeasures?
|
|
* Or even also the auto-add-from contract?
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 37
|
|
a37 36
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1092827582" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
|
|
I do not like the current structure of Statistical measures.
|
|
|
|
For categorical states, we can define local states directly at a character, or we can define generic concepts states at the concept tree nodes. A concept can be color, with red, green, ... in the property tree, or fruit with capsule, berry, ... in the structure/part tree. These generic states (should we call them concept states?) can be reused at multiple characters. This not only saves definition work, it also allows to define a shape once, and thus allow an identification processor to abstract from the structure. If a fungus has sexual and asexual spores, one may not know which ones are currently present during the identification. Knowing that there is a concept "Spore shapes" would allow to search in any characters using this concept.
|
|
|
|
Importantly, categorical states only make sense as a set, and thus entire sets can be referenced.
|
|
|
|
Back to numerical:
|
|
|
|
Here we have an extra dimension to define project wide information for any use of mean, max, etc. in Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures. The <nop>StatisticalMeasure/Generalization can be used to make the measure concept fully interoperable. However, the project-wide definitions are necessary, otherwise we will not be able to add labels and wordings in other languages (German, Chinese, etc.)
|
|
|
|
However, we have nowhere a set of these, and they are not reusable as a set. You can not specify that for spore measurements you would like to use min, lower range as mean - s.d., mean, upper range as mean + s.d., max, and sample size, whereas for hyphal wall measures you simply record extremes (min to max).
|
|
|
|
Instead, we would have to add each measure to each state. That makes it impossible to provide a similar functionality as above envisaged for categorical states, looking at the generic concept of spore measure and finding all characters using this concept.
|
|
|
|
In previous schema versions we had the project wide ("global") measures defined in sets (1:n). However, this worked poorly since the mean or min/max will occur in many sets, as in the example above. The association between set and project-wide definition must be n:m. Currently it is removed completely.
|
|
|
|
Now what shall we do:
|
|
|
|
* Everything different, including the ResolvedTopicGenericStates for categorical stuff?
|
|
* Mirror the categorical solution for numerical? Does that include having
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures,
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>ConceptTrees/<nop>ConceptTree/Nodes/Concept/<nop>StatisticalMeasures, and
|
|
* Terminology/<nop>Characters/<nop>Character/Numerical/<nop>StatisticalMeasures?
|
|
* Or even also the auto-add-from contract?
|
|
|
|
Or should we be more stringent here and say: We do away with Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures and define them only at the (not yet existing!) Terminology/<nop>ConceptTrees/<nop>ConceptTree/Nodes/Concept/<nop>StatisticalMeasures? We would have to add the labels for min, max, mean several times, but the Generalization would allow applications to figure out that they are referring to the same concept.
|
|
|
|
Then, should we allow only complete sets in this case, rather than partial as in the case of the ResolvedTopicGenericStates?
|
|
|
|
I currently tend to favor the stringent solution, but I urgently would need a good discussion on this...
|
|
|
|
(return to SchemaDiscussionSDD09s)
|
|
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn - 15 Dec 2003, 9. June 2004
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1087817400" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
|
|
d37 1
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
a2 2
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1086817819" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussion"}%
|
|
d34 1
|
|
a34 1
|
|
(return to SchemaDiscussions)
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1085765046" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
|
|
d21 6
|
|
a26 2
|
|
* Everything different, including the ResolvedTopicGenericStates for categorical stuff?
|
|
* Mirror the categorical solution for numerical? Does that include having Terminology/<nop>StatisticalMeasures, Terminology/<nop>ConceptTrees/<nop>ConceptTree/Nodes/Concept/<nop>StatisticalMeasures, and Terminology/<nop>Characters/<nop>CCharacter/Numerical/<nop>StatisticalMeasures? Or even the auto-add-from contract?
|
|
a33 1
|
|
|
|
d36 1
|
|
a36 1
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn - 15 Dec 2003
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1071500099" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
|
d21 1
|
|
a21 1
|
|
* Everything different, including the GenericStates for categorical stuff?
|
|
d26 1
|
|
a26 1
|
|
Then, should we allow only complete sets in this case, rather than partial as in the case of the GenericStates?
|
|
@
|