Improve input visualization default style (iv)

[ludaesch]

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...

[nfranz]

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 < notifications@github.com> 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 https://github.com/EulerProject/EulerX/issues/20, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHPAOl4xBgwL8IFiBa7SC37bYXvV7vErks5r03cygaJpZM4NMVDT .

[ludaesch]

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 < notifications@github.com> 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 https://github.com/EulerProject/EulerX/issues/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 https://github.com/EulerProject/EulerX/issues/20#issuecomment-298245225, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHaPD7UYKzsbthmQl2M7G4PoEo_whHIEks5r1MUPgaJpZM4NMVDT .

[shizhuoyu]

I am done with the change. Besides, we can do symbols instead of English words in Euler input.

For example,

taxonomy 1 Taxonomy1 (a b e) taxonomy 2 Taxonomy2 (c d f) articulation tw1 tw1 [1.a equals 2.c] [1.b {is_included_in equals} 2.d] [1.e {includes equals} 2.f]

is equivalent to:

taxonomy 1 Taxonomy1 (a b e) taxonomy 2 Taxonomy2 (c d f) articulation tw1 tw1 [1.a = 2.c] [1.b {< =} 2.d] [1.e {> =} 2.f]

We can use the following symbols in input: equals: = is_included_in: < includes: > overlaps: >< disjoint: !