commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <mdigg...@latte.harvard.edu>
Subject Re: [math][proposal] stat package structure
Date Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:44:14 GMT
On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 22:40, Al Chou wrote:
> --- Phil Steitz <phil@steitz.com> wrote:
> > I would like to propose the following repackaging of classes in the stat 
> > and distributions packages.
> > 
> > 1. Move the univariate statistical aggregates (DescriptiveStatistics, 
> > SummaryStatistics et al) into the univariate package.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> > 2. Move distributions back into stat. I did not comment on the initial 
> > move out, but it seems wrong to me now.  The abstract classes and all 
> > implementations are probability distributions. To me these fit naturally 
> > in stat.  I can live with it as is; I just wanted to see if others are 
> > feeling the same and if so, get it fixed while we still have the chance.
> 
> +1  Here the "stat" package doubles as a "probability" package that doesn't
> exist, but in the absence of a use case for the latter, it makes sense to make
> the move you're proposing.

> 
> > 3. Create a "multivariate" subpackage and place the lonely 
> > BivariateRegression there.  It is odd to have a package with only one 
> > class, but I think the probability is 1 that we will quickly have more 
> > multivariate statistical classes (e.g. multiple regression) and I would 
> > prefer not to have to play the deprecate-move game if we can see it coming.
> 
> +1  It's like a section of a document outline that has only one subsection
> (which my English teachers in secondary schools always warned against <g>),
> except that we can easily envision other subsections coming into existence
> under that section.
> 
> 
> > 4. Similarly, I would like to create an "inference" or "test" subpackage 
> > and put TestStatistic there.
> 
> +1  I wonder if there's a better name than those two.  I see Mark voted for
> "test", but -- perhaps because I've never done much statistics -- that makes me
> think that I'm looking at a JUnit "tests" directory tree.  A quick skim through
> _NR_ chapter 14 didn't turn up any better names, though.
> 

good point, although we avoid "test" package names for JUnit tests in
favor of the original package name of the class being tested, something
I think is very smart to do. I'm not too picky here, I just picked test
because its shorter, inference is more descriptive too. Along the same
lines "distributions" could be confused with the the generic idea of a
"distribution" of packages directory, maybe "probability is better
there?

Maybe it should be organized more along the following lines?

o.a.c.m.stat.probability...
o.a.c.m.stat.univariate...
o.a.c.m.stat.multivariate...
o.a.c.m.stat.inference...

> While you're moving TestStatistic, I noticed two typos in the Javadoc for
> chiSquare( double[, double[] ):  "freqeuncy" and "counds".

-- 
Mark R. Diggory
Software Developer - VDC Project
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message