heartlogic-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype


From: Joshua N Pritikin
Subject: RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:30:08 +0530

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 21:05 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > Right, that's what I was asking.  So:
> >
> > create table c_commonsense (
> > id int,
> > c_commonsense_is_reversed boolean,
> > c_commonsense_statement varchar(512),
> > c_commonsense_explanation varchar(1024)
> > ) without oids;
> >
> > Those string lengths are just approximate and easy to increase if
> > needed. OK?
> 
> you are the programmer but i think id would be better if the is_reversed
> var were at the end.  since there are likely to be other vars that we will
> add soon.

This is a database table so we can change the layout, add, or remove
columns at any time.

> > So write a perl script or a carefully formatted file which can be used
> > to populate such a database table.
> 
> you recently sent an email with an attachment named simple.  you wanted 
> me to tweak the item content in there to my liking.  my guess is that this 
> was an example of a carefully formated file which can be used to populate 
> such a database table.  is that correct?

Yes, but perhaps it is better separate items with \n\n and separate
fields with \n.  The script I sent assumes that there is one items per
line which doesn't leave any space for the other fields.

> > OK, I have removed the part about how other people have rated this piece
> > of commonsense knowledge.
> 
> well, what we actually want is both.  we want...
> 
> hal thinks blah.
> 
> please rate this
> 
> 1) high un 2) mod un 3 neut 4 mnod belief 5 hightly believable
> 
> ...then after the user finishes we want some representation of what people 
> think...
> 
> e.g. the average believability rating that other human raters gave was 4.
> 3 other's have rated this so far.
> 
> ...What do you guys think...what is the best way to rep "what other human 
> raters believe" here?  mean and number of respondants?  mean alone?  mean 
> plus sdev?  a histogram?....my preferennce is mean  and number of 
> respondants.

D'oh, well, it's easy to put whatever stats you want.

-- 
If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
 (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]