Improve input visualization default style (iv) #20
Assignees
Labels
Comments
|
On the replacements.. (only)
I tend to go fairly strongly (but not 100% consistently either) for
'honoring' preceding or existing symbology. Some German moss folks started
with RRC-5 in taxonomy in the late 1990s.
http://www.naturkundemuseum-bw.de/sites/default/files/publikationen/serie-a/A590.pdf
The "><" is from them, still. So are <, >. The "==" was a minor change
because they used an equal sign with a caret on top that I don't even have
in my Word symbol set. The "!" comes from Dave Thau's thesis.
"=" very often has a specific meaning in taxonomy of strictly
nomenclatural equivalence, i.e., 1 or 2 con-specific type specimens. E.g.
http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=6001 We need to be able to say
that RCC-5 congruence (==) is separate from nomenclatural synonymy (=)
Genus Minyomerus Horn, 1876 sec. Jansen & Franz (2015)
*Minyomerus* Horn, 1876: 17 sec. Horn (1876)
AND = *Elissa* Casey, 1888: 271 sec. Casey (1888) (synonymized by Kissinger
1964: 30)
AND = *Pseudelissa* Casey, 1888: 273 sec. Casey (1888) (synonymized by Pierce
1909: 359)
AND = *Piscatopus* Sleeper, 1960: 84 sec. Sleeper (1960), syn. n.
Type species
*Minyomerus microps* (Say, 1831: 9) sec. Jansen & Franz (2015), stat. n.
== (INT) AND > (OST) AND = *Thylacites microps* Say, 1831: 9 sec. Say
(1831) (transferred to *Minyomerus* sec. Blackwelder & Blackwelder [1948]
on the authority of Buchanan *in litt*. by Blackwelder and Blackwelder 1948:
46)
== (INT) AND > (OST) AND = *Thylacites microsus* Boheman, 1833: 523 sec.
Boheman (1833) (synonymized by LeConte 1859: 286)
== (INT) AND > (OST) AND = *Minyomerus innocuus* Horn, 1876: 18 sec. Horn
(1876) (type, designated by Pierce 1913: 400), syn. n.
-----
I get that it's nice to have 1 character, maximally informative symbols.
But there are other variables to consider: ease of use on any keyboard;
relative precision/monosemy (where "%" would force upon users a fairly
harsh act of re-learning that it's not "percentage"); and lastly, the risk
of appearing flimsy when a small community of users changes a symbology
that was a compromise, with another set of symbols that are not hands
down/obvious to everybody an improvement (but just a differently weighed
compromise).
The {} annotation I like. I also wish we could add the visualization
symbols in the Euler input.. instead of "is_included_in".
Cheers, Nico
…On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Bertram Ludaescher < ***@***.***> wrote:
When running "euler2 show iv" (input visualization), disjunctive input
articulations are shown, e.g., like this "== OR < OR ><"
Some other possible improvements are shown in the screenshot.
I'm not sure about the last one (replace "!" with "%"), but I like the
visual separation of the two small circles, indicating disjointness...
[image: euler-iv-improvement]
<https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/7769871/25557557/9d14010e-2cd9-11e7-9b1a-1098429532d1.png>
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHPAOl4xBgwL8IFiBa7SC37bYXvV7vErks5r03cygaJpZM4NMVDT>
.
|
|
Nico. Agreed. Let's revisit defaults when we chat next. We also should make
sure the customizations work well, so we can have different styles. No
problem.
Backwards compatibility is a huge argument. So we'll definitely need to
take that into account....
And I'm already happy seeing the OR go and be replaced with the { ...}
More soon. It's all gonna have a Happy Ending. :-)
(sent from phone)
On Apr 30, 2017 12:29 PM, "Nico Franz" <notifications@github.com> wrote:
On the replacements.. (only)
I tend to go fairly strongly (but not 100% consistently either) for
'honoring' preceding or existing symbology. Some German moss folks started
with RRC-5 in taxonomy in the late 1990s.
http://www.naturkundemuseum-bw.de/sites/default/files/
publikationen/serie-a/A590.pdf
The "><" is from them, still. So are <, >. The "==" was a minor change
because they used an equal sign with a caret on top that I don't even have
in my Word symbol set. The "!" comes from Dave Thau's thesis.
"=" very often has a specific meaning in taxonomy of strictly
nomenclatural equivalence, i.e., 1 or 2 con-specific type specimens. E.g.
http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=6001 We need to be able to say
that RCC-5 congruence (==) is separate from nomenclatural synonymy (=)
Genus Minyomerus Horn, 1876 sec. Jansen & Franz (2015)
*Minyomerus* Horn, 1876: 17 sec. Horn (1876)
AND = *Elissa* Casey, 1888: 271 sec. Casey (1888) (synonymized by
Kissinger
1964: 30)
AND = *Pseudelissa* Casey, 1888: 273 sec. Casey (1888) (synonymized by
Pierce
1909: 359)
AND = *Piscatopus* Sleeper, 1960: 84 sec. Sleeper (1960), syn. n.
Type species
*Minyomerus microps* (Say, 1831: 9) sec. Jansen & Franz (2015), stat. n.
== (INT) AND > (OST) AND = *Thylacites microps* Say, 1831: 9 sec. Say
(1831) (transferred to *Minyomerus* sec. Blackwelder & Blackwelder [1948]
on the authority of Buchanan *in litt*. by Blackwelder and Blackwelder 1948:
46)
== (INT) AND > (OST) AND = *Thylacites microsus* Boheman, 1833: 523 sec.
Boheman (1833) (synonymized by LeConte 1859: 286)
== (INT) AND > (OST) AND = *Minyomerus innocuus* Horn, 1876: 18 sec. Horn
(1876) (type, designated by Pierce 1913: 400), syn. n.
-----
I get that it's nice to have 1 character, maximally informative symbols.
But there are other variables to consider: ease of use on any keyboard;
relative precision/monosemy (where "%" would force upon users a fairly
harsh act of re-learning that it's not "percentage"); and lastly, the risk
of appearing flimsy when a small community of users changes a symbology
that was a compromise, with another set of symbols that are not hands
down/obvious to everybody an improvement (but just a differently weighed
compromise).
The {} annotation I like. I also wish we could add the visualization
symbols in the Euler input.. instead of "is_included_in".
Cheers, Nico
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Bertram Ludaescher < ***@***.***> wrote:
When running "euler2 show iv" (input visualization), disjunctive input
articulations are shown, e.g., like this "== OR < OR ><"
Some other possible improvements are shown in the screenshot.
I'm not sure about the last one (replace "!" with "%"), but I like the
visual separation of the two small circles, indicating disjointness...
[image: euler-iv-improvement]
<https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/7769871/25557557/9d14010e-
2cd9-11e7-9b1a-1098429532d1.png>
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/
AHPAOl4xBgwL8IFiBa7SC37bYXvV7vErks5r03cygaJpZM4NMVDT>
.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#20 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHaPD7UYKzsbthmQl2M7G4PoEo_whHIEks5r1MUPgaJpZM4NMVDT>
.
|
|
I am done with the change. Besides, we can do symbols instead of English words in Euler input. For example,
is equivalent to:
We can use the following symbols in input: |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
When running "euler2 show iv" (input visualization), disjunctive input articulations are shown, e.g., like this "== OR < OR ><"
Some other possible improvements are shown in the screenshot.
I'm not sure about the last one (replace "!" with "%"), but I like the visual separation of the two small circles, indicating disjointness...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: