Skip to content

Revisit Multi-Output Support Naming Conventions #332

Open
@thomasgudjonwright

Description

@thomasgudjonwright

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 vs MultiOutput. 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 and weights instead of g, e and A for the slfm
  • the LinearMixingModelKernel is a kernel, not a model. Maybe it should be renamed LinearMixingKernel for eg. I think we've all agreed on this already.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions