Re: ​Re: PSPP CTABLES

[Ben Pfaff]

Thank you for the correction.  I don't have a corpus of .spo or .spw
files.  (If anyone has a collection of either kind of file and is
willing to give them to me, then I can make reading those formats a
later project.  I would keep them confidential.)

GPL graphics are similar, except for syntax, to the ViZML graphics that
.spv files embed for graphs and models, so if I ever implement one of
them then the other would probably not be much harder.  But I don't
currently have plans for either one.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 01:00:45AM +0200, Michał Dubrawski wrote:
> Thank you Ben,
> 
> I remember the old output format from my first contact with SPSS as a
> student - I found information that it was .spo file extension while .spw is
> file extension for web reports:
> https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/spss/seminars/introduction-to-spss-syntax-2/
> " SPSS output files have the file extension .spv.  You can also save output
> files with the .spw extension, which is for the SPSS Web Reports format.
> Older SPSS output files may have the extension .spo.  These files can be
> read with the SPSS Smart Viewer, which can be downloaded for free from the
> IBM SPSS website.  Note that only .spo files that were created using a
> Windows machine can be read with the SPSS Smart Viewer. "
> 
> About graphics I meant GPL graphics:
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLVMB_24.0.0/spss/base/syn_begin_gpl_overview.html
> 
> "GPL blocks cannot be contained within DEFINE-!ENDDEFINE macro definitions"
> 
> I don't really like that GPL command language, but I don't know if you ever
> plan to have graphics like that in PSPP.
> 
> 
> warm regards,
> Michal
> 
> 2018-07-26 19:35 GMT+02:00 Ben Pfaff <address@hidden>:
> 
> > There seem to be several SPSS output formats.
> >
> > First, there's something really old (?) with an .spw extension.  I
> > haven't looked at those at all and I don't have a corpus of them to
> > learn from, so PSPP won't support .spw files until those change.
> >
> > Second, there are effectively two different subformats of .spv files.
> > Both of them wrap XML and binary members inside a .zip file.  In the
> > older format, graphs and tables are both represented by ViZML XML.  This
> > is a fairly awful way to represent a table, so the newer format switches
> > to a binary format for tables (SPSS calls this format "light").  There
> > are different sub-versions for that binary format, too.  Currently my
> > reader understands the light table format (all versions I've run into)
> > and I'm working on the older format.
> >
> > I haven't tried to make PSPP understand SPSS graphs.  That's a lot more
> > work.
> >
> > When this feature gets in, it's probably going to take several
> > iterations of bug reports and fixes, because I'm implementing it by
> > reading lots of .spv files and making sure that the reader supports
> > them.  Even though it successfully reads the thousands of .spv files
> > I've collected, I imagine that there will be lots that it initially
> > cannot.  For those, I hope that users will send them to me so that I can
> > add them to my corpus and fix the bugs.  Other than those bugs, PSPP
> > should be able to open any .spv file, regardless of what procedures they
> > use.
> >
> > Which graphics commands can't be called from macros?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 07:24:18PM +0200, Michał Dubrawski wrote:
> > > Thank you Ben. I understand the context now. Good to hear that spv format
> > > will help. By the way does it mean that unlike SPSS which if I remember
> > > well  cannot open spv created in older versions of SPSS, PSPP would be
> > able
> > > to open any spv? Would it be only able to read spv with output from
> > > procedures that are also implemented in PSPP?
> > > One more thing I really hate how they made graphics commends which could
> > > not be called from macros - please don't go that way if you would like to
> > > implement it in PSPP someday :)
> > >
> > > W dniu czwartek, 26 lipca 2018 Ben Pfaff <address@hidden>
> > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > MULT RESPONSE might also benefit from the work I'm doing.  I've looked
> > > > at MULT RESPONSE before, and one of the things that kept me from
> > > > implementing it is the output complexity.  CROSSTABS also has very
> > > > complex output routines, to the extent the complexity of the output
> > > > comes close to overshadowing the complexity of the data analysis.  MULT
> > > > RESPONSE is worse.
> > > >
> > > > But most of the complexity comes from how PSPP internally has no
> > > > systematic approach to displaying data as tables.  (It does have decent
> > > > support for rendering tables into different formats, but not for
> > > > converting data into tables to be rendered.)  The SPV format actually
> > > > points a good way forward on this point, so when the appropriate amount
> > > > of work is done, it should allow CROSSTABS to be nicer internally and
> > > > then a reasonable MULT RESPONSE implementation too.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:56:17AM +0200, Michał Dubrawski wrote:
> > > > >  Hi Ben,
> > > > >
> > > > > it is great to hear that you are working with spv output. I know that
> > > > they
> > > > > were changing it from version to version so it seem like quite a
> > > > challenge,
> > > > > but based on what challenges you have faced before when making PSPP
> > > > > compatible to SPSS I'm sure you will handle it :)
> > > > >
> > > > > CTABLES or Tables in the future will be very useful but I think that
> > what
> > > > > would be most important for students, social sicentists,
> > psychologists,
> > > > > market researchers or virtualy anyone who analyse any survey results
> > > > would
> > > > > be the possibility to display mrsets in one table, which could be
> > done in
> > > > > SPSS with  MULT RESPONSE command. Without it PSPP wouldn't be an
> > option
> > > > to
> > > > > display survey results because almost all surveys have multi response
> > > > > questions. The only free alternative would be some packages in R
> > which
> > > > are
> > > > > not as accessible (easy to use) as PSPP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any way to display MRSETS in the PSPP output would be very valuable
> > for a
> > > > > lot of people even if it would be a cross tabs extension allowing the
> > > > usage
> > > > > of mrsets in it or something like that. When people graduate from
> > > > > psychology, sociology, social science or pedagogics departments they
> > have
> > > > > knowledge how to build a surveys - there are a lot of tools that
> > allow
> > > > them
> > > > > to collect data via online surveys, but when it comes to displaying
> > the
> > > > > results in tables for the reports they all have a software problem
> > > > because
> > > > > many non-profits and startups cannot afford SPSS + Custom Tables
> > > > licenses,
> > > > > and from my experience that is exactly the software they know how to
> > use
> > > > > because of their Universities.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, thanks again to Ben and all the developers and all other
> > > > people
> > > > > involved with PSPP project - you have done tremendous work so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michał Dubrawski,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 08:48:33 -0700
> > > > > > From: Ben Pfaff <address@hidden>
> > > > > > To: Alan Mead <address@hidden>
> > > > > > Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> > > > > > Subject:
> > > > > > ​​
> > > > > > Re: PSPP CTABLES
> > > > > > Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it's likely that I'll change PSPP to use the same output
> > model.
> > > > > > One reason that it differed until now is simply that it wasn't
> > clear to
> > > > > > me how SPSS really modeled output.  The documentation on it is
> > pretty
> > > > > > muddy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've now got code that reads and understands most .spv files just
> > fine.
> > > > > > I'm still working on reading the oldest kind of .spv files, which
> > use a
> > > > > > really funny way to encode tables.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:11AM -0500, Alan Mead wrote:
> > > > > > > FWIW, I'm excited that you're working on reading SPV format. I
> > had
> > > > > > > assumed that the implicit output model might preclude
> > compatibility.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Alan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/24/2018 4:30 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > > > > > > There might be some small hope here because I've been spending
> > a
> > > > lot of
> > > > > > > > time lately working to make PSPP understand SPSS's .spv output
> > file
> > > > > > > > format, so that it can read (and write?) it directly.
> > Implicit in
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > format is an understanding of the SPSS output model, which
> > seems
> > > > to be
> > > > > > > > entangled quite a bit with the CTABLES syntax.  It might
> > therefore
> > > > lead
> > > > > > > > someday to CTABLES implementation (but not soon).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:21:11PM +0000, Crichton, Ronald
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> I asked about this a few years ago.  I gather it would be
> > > > difficult.
> > > > > > Mind you, I used TABLES in SPSS in about 1990 and got to quite
> > like it
> > > > and
> > > > > > used it a lot. So, here we are in 2018 and I use CTABLES in SPSS,
> > and
> > > > can?t
> > > > > > get the hang of it, at least not much more than the basic usage of
> > it.
> > > > > > Can?t stand it. I long for the old TABLES function. Not available
> > in
> > > > SPSS.
> > > > > > So, here?s the thing: perhaps PSPP should develop its own version
> > of
> > > > TABLES
> > > > > > with just the basics, without trying to emulate SPSS because they
> > have
> > > > > > stuffed up something that used to be quite good.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> From: Pspp-users [mailto:pspp-users-bounces+ronald.crichton=
> > > > > > address@hidden On Behalf Of Jakub ?krob?nek
> > > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2018 6:29 PM
> > > > > > > >> To: address@hidden
> > > > > > > >> Subject: PSPP CTABLES
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hi, I would like to ask if there is any progression in CTABLES
> > > > > > implementation to PSPP. I read some threads (http://pspp-users.gnu
> > .
> > > > > > narkive.com/r32JwdwI/what-features-of-custom-tables-
> > > > > > ctables-are-most-important) but they seems dead. Any suggestion?
> > > > > > > >> Kind regards
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Jacob
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > -----------
> > > > > > > >> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also
> > > > > > privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
> > the
> > > > sender
> > > > > > and delete all copies of this transmission along with any
> > attachments
> > > > > > immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor
> > > > disclose
> > > > > > its contents to any other person.
> > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > -----------
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> Pspp-users mailing list
> > > > > > > >> address@hidden
> > > > > > > >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-users
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Pspp-users mailing list
> > > > > > > > address@hidden
> > > > > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-users
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alan D. Mead, Ph.D.
> > > > > > > President, Talent Algorithms Inc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > science + technology = better workers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.alanmead.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "You're an interesting species. An interesting mix.
> > > > > > > You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such
> > > > > > > horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off,
> > > > > > > so alone, only you're not. See, in all our
> > > > > > > searching, the only thing we've found that makes
> > > > > > > the emptiness bearable, is each other."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- Carl Sagan, Contact
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >