Rehash of issue 51 - github is giving me errors trying to post this

@fvilla

This should be a continuation of issue 51, which I've temporarily reopened - for some reason github is giving me error messages when I try to post this.

OK... I've been going through all the BNs that will undergo training and have a single case study-specific concept and changing all the concepts in those models to case study specific ones. As you can imagine this is a lot of refactoring ontologies, models, storylines, and the colormaps.properties file but no problem if it's the right thing to do. However, I've got another strange case that may take a a bit of thought. In many cases there was actually a good reason why some concepts remained service-specific and others remained case study specific, even within the same model (though evidently this means evidence cannot be considered for training). The best example are the Colorado water supply and sediment regulation models. In all our water supply models, we discretize percent tree canopy cover into 5 classes while we discretize it into 3 classes in the sediment regulation models (there are good reasons for this, based on the dynamics of these two services). So in the past I'd used a 3-class concept soilRetentionService:PercentTreeCanopyCover and a 5-class concept, waterSupplyService:PercentTreeCanopyCover. Now you're telling me that if we train both models to Colorado and they have some CO concepts in them, they all need to be switched to colorado concepts. But of course that means that the sediment model now uses only 3 of the 5 classes of percent tree canopy cover, which it was my understanding was a bad thing (i.e., there's some semantic ambiguity here). Would welcome your thoughts on how to do this right, so we get it right in any other, similar cases.

Reopening until I hear back on the right thing to do, then we can close this one for good.

ariesteam / aries

Rehash of issue 51 - github is giving me errors trying to post this #57