Hello All,

Tobias Girschick wrote:
> Hello Nina,
>
> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 14:21 +0200, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> RDF representations, structurally, contain much more (meta)information
>>> about the objects they describe than ARFFs, so this piece of
>>> information in the text/x-arff (the datatype of each feature) IMHO has
>>> to be included in the RDF or at least - in order not to modify the RDF
>>> standards we adopted in API 1.1 - we should use proper XSD datatypes
>>> for every value. After all, its not 1^^double, 1^^string and
>>> 1^^nominal is not the same and won't (shouldn't) be handled the same
>>> way by a training algorithm.
>>>
>> Yes, especially for nominals, it would be better to introduce subclass
>> of Feature, rather than using XSD types for denoting the types.  I might
>> try to extend opentox.owl next days.
>>
>
> This would be great. At the moment, classification is not possible as it
> relies on a nominal target feature. Will this be reflected in the
> text/x-arff, too?

Apart from feature value type I would like to have a "feature range"
as well. This should be a property of a feature, which gives me all
the possible feature values of a nominal feature (e.g. active,
moderately-active, inactive). This is needed when validating a
prediction algorithm.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Martin


-- 
Dipl-Inf. Martin Gütlein
Phone:
+49 (0)761 203 8442 (office)
+49 (0)177 623 9499 (mobile)
Email:
guetlein at informatik.uni-freiburg.de