|
Difference between
version 59
and
version 55:
| Line 166 was replaced by line 166 |
| - *** Participants: Steve Cox, David Chalcraft, Shawn Bowers, Bertram Ludaescher, Mark Schildhauer, Chad Berkley, Dan Higgins, Jianting Zhang ([jzhang@lternet.edu|mailto:jzhang@lternet.edu]) |
| + *** Participants: Steve Cox, David Chalcraft, Shawn Bowers, Bertram Ludaescher, Mark Schildhauer, Chad Berkley, Dan Higgins, Jianting Zhang |
| At line 271 added 1 line. |
| + ** [http://jornada-www.nmsu.edu/studies/lter/datasets/plants/nppqdbio/data/nppqdbio.htm] |
| Lines 279-280 were replaced by lines 280-281 |
| - ** Workflow we developed: |
| - *** (workflow here ...) |
| + ** Workflow we examined: |
| + [http://cvs.ecoinformatics.org/cvs/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/seek/projects/kr-sms/docs/beam_kr_sms_meeting_sept_04_workflow.png] |
| Line 296 was replaced by line 297 |
| - ***** The “nested” transpose is basically a combination of various lower-level algebraic operators, such as (theoretical) group-by, matrix transpose, projection, etc. So, give q as such a plan of operators, can we reason over the operators (white box-actors) q to obtain S*’? Using symbolic manipulation? Using the chase, e.g., for similar problems in integrity constraints? |
| + ***** The “nested” transpose is basically a combination of various lower-level algebraic operators, such as (theoretical) group-by, matrix transpose, projection, etc. So, given q as such a plan of operators, can we reason over the plan (white box-actor) q to obtain S*’? Using symbolic manipulation? Using the chase, e.g., for similar problems in integrity constraints? |
Back to Beam Knowledge Rep Sept 04,
or to the Page History.
|
