Open
Description
Two new multi-output input types are being added and the PR sparked some debate/discussion surrounding their names and the wider spread naming conventions that have been adopted in KernelFuntions
. The main thread discussing these can be found [here].(#310 (comment)).
Some starting points:
MO
vsMultiOutput
. Concise or explicit?- Do we like the prefix
isotopic
? Is it too jargony?
Quote from paper linked above:
In the geostatistics literature, if each output has the same set of inputs the model
is called isotopic
Pros:
It has a specific meaning in this context, clearly identifying what it is
Cons:
Might scare users off, lengthens names
- Relating to the PR linked above, how do we make these accessible? Less "wordy" helpers? What do we call those?
- Should composite type field names have more descriptive names?
eg.kernels
,mokernel
andweights
instead ofg
,e
andA
for the slfm - the
LinearMixingModelKernel
is a kernel, not a model. Maybe it should be renamedLinearMixingKernel
for eg. I think we've all agreed on this already.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels