Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

form of difference #14

Open
marqh opened this issue Feb 28, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

form of difference #14

marqh opened this issue Feb 28, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@marqh
Copy link
Member

marqh commented Feb 28, 2018

In the current Improver code, this concept is proposed to be encoded as:

spp__form_of_difference = spv__forward_difference
<>
        a               rdf:Property ;
        rdfs:label      "" ;
	dct:description "" ;
        dct:identifier  "" .

Is the identifier form_of_difference a clear and long term identifier?

What 'description' would we give this concept?

The first known value for use with form_of_difference is forward_difference

<>
        a               skos:Concept ;
        rdfs:label      "" ;
	dct:description "" ;
        dct:identifier  "" .
@cgsandford
Copy link

Can I suggest possible values of the form eg "spv__forward_increment"? "Difference" could refer to a variety of things, such as ratios - don't know whether we want to capture that in the attribute name or restrict the definition more.

@MarkWorsfold
Copy link

Hi, I think its a good idea to avoid using the term "difference" - like Caroline said - it can have so many different meanings.

Me and Gavin have been discussing this and we think that a modified version of Carolines proposal would be:
spv_increment_direction = "forward/backward"

For example if an identifier states: spv_increment_direction = "forward"
We would mean that we are incrementing from left to right of the array. But we need to do something in the documentation to make this absolutely clear.

This can be coupled with another piece of metadata where we state that the stepsize is N cells.
spv_increment_step = N

@marqh
Copy link
Member Author

marqh commented Mar 5, 2018

Hello all

Looking from the outside, I can see how spp_increment_direction is a more widely applicable term.

An option for defining direction, chiming with forward/backwards, is to link it to the coordinate values. So the increment direction is either with increasing coordinate values or decreasing coordinate values.
I might use terms like coordinate_positive: the direction of increasing coordinate values and coordinate_negative: the direction of decreasing coordinate values

A different option is to link direction to the indexing scheme, so the increment direction is either with increasing index or with decreasing index.
I would interpret forward/backward as being an indexing direction, as described by @MarkWorsfold

Is it preferred to identify direction via indexing or via coordinate metadata?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants