Datatypes R2 Issue 29
Data Types Issue 29: PPD<T> issues
- Tons of issues here. I have had extensive exchange with Paul Schluter about shortcomings. I think we need to do 2 things: (1) correct the parameter specifications, (2) consider adding (or including) a confidence interval notation. This also relates with the disambiguation of IVL and URG. Gschadow 21:58, 11 January 2007 (CST)
PPD<T>: Revamp PPD to address two interests in the PPD data type extension. PPD<T>: we have two interests in the PPD data type extension. One group of people (Paul Schluter, GE, from LABPOCT SIG and IEEE/MIB group) wants more distribution types and more parameters. Another group, represented by many, many casual users, need a simple confidence-interval like form. Those are people who now prefer to use IVL<T> rather than PPD because PPD seems alien to them.
Proposal is to revamp PPD (which had been left on status informative for the ballot) and accomplish both of these above goals. Review and extend the distributions and parameterization model, and at the same time add a confidence interval form and potentially a percentile form.
The goal is to make PPD/confidence interval and IVL compatible types with the same XML rendition. That way we can gently stir people to using PPD for ranges with “pick one” semantics and away from IVL which has “all of those” semantics
Auxilliary: Is it possible, then, to construct a PPD<RTO>?
? backward compatible.
Back to Data Types R2 issues