[GRASS5] r.li (landscape indices)

Hi all.
We used r.le a lot, but we're not satisfied by its performances, ease of use,
and maintainability. A previous attempt at incorporating Fragstats as a grass
module (thanks Jachym!) revealed theat the code is not maintained very
actively, and probably not worth the effort. Therefore, a couple of students
have produced an interesting new C module for grass, with a rather different
approach to the problem. It is not functional yet, but it has been built with
expandability in mind, so it should be straightforward to include new
indices. I include here their note. It would be good if people could see if
the general structure and idea is ok, and help us completing it.
You can download it from:
http://www.faunalia.it/download/r.li.tar.gz
Looking forward to hear from you.
pc

Hi again, we post a development version of our work about r.li module.
The pourpose of this project is the parallel computing of focals index
on raster maps or areas.
It is based on sampling area definition of r.le but we tried to made a
more upgradable module to make definition of index indipendent from
areas definition management.

We wrote two programs:
1 - r.li.setup: this program defines the sample areas for the analysis
with a gui interface. It is based on sampling frame- and sampling area
definition of r.le.setup, but it have two novelties: the first one is the
gui, and the second one the format of configuration file that is
raster-indipendent. It means that you can define an area configuration
file on a raster map and use the same file on another map (the
dimension are saved in relative coordinates).
See the description file for more explanations.

2 - r.li.daemon is a client-server architecture that manage the
parallel computing of index on the areas defined by the configuration
file. It is a little long to explain but we'll try with few words.
The server reads the configuration file and build a list of areas, then
create a group of clients and send an area to everyone of this. The
clients calculates the index (it is passed with a function pointer) and
then returns the result to the server. Then the server stores the
result in a file (or on a raster in moving window mode that is under
development).
In this way a new index have only to take care of an area (defined with
a rectangle and a mask) and can be written only defining the C
function. To create a new index then you have only to copy the main
program and change the simple index with your index and pass your
function calling the calculateIndex function... We hope it will be
useful.
Please send comments or suggestions...

Davide Spano, Claudio Porta University of Pisa
--
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953

Just a quick question:

is there any reason why there are some r.li modules named
like this (these would be the first module names that introduce capital letters):

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE
r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity

compared to this:

r.li.edgedensity (why not r.li.edgeDensity?)
r.li.patchnumber (r.li.patchNUMBER?)

Thanks,

Helena

P.S. Note, that if you use CLI and take advantage of name completion
you would still have to type entire r.li.patchAreaDistribution

Helena Mitasova
Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
Raleigh NC 27695
http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/

On Jan 19, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

Hi all.
We used r.le a lot, but we're not satisfied by its performances, ease of use,
and maintainability. A previous attempt at incorporating Fragstats as a grass
module (thanks Jachym!) revealed theat the code is not maintained very
actively, and probably not worth the effort. Therefore, a couple of students
have produced an interesting new C module for grass, with a rather different
approach to the problem. It is not functional yet, but it has been built with
expandability in mind, so it should be straightforward to include new
indices. I include here their note. It would be good if people could see if
the general structure and idea is ok, and help us completing it.
You can download it from:
http://www.faunalia.it/download/r.li.tar.gz
Looking forward to hear from you.
pc

Hi again, we post a development version of our work about r.li module.
The pourpose of this project is the parallel computing of focals index
on raster maps or areas.
It is based on sampling area definition of r.le but we tried to made a
more upgradable module to make definition of index indipendent from
areas definition management.

We wrote two programs:
1 - r.li.setup: this program defines the sample areas for the analysis
with a gui interface. It is based on sampling frame- and sampling area
definition of r.le.setup, but it have two novelties: the first one is the
gui, and the second one the format of configuration file that is
raster-indipendent. It means that you can define an area configuration
file on a raster map and use the same file on another map (the
dimension are saved in relative coordinates).
See the description file for more explanations.

2 - r.li.daemon is a client-server architecture that manage the
parallel computing of index on the areas defined by the configuration
file. It is a little long to explain but we'll try with few words.
The server reads the configuration file and build a list of areas, then
create a group of clients and send an area to everyone of this. The
clients calculates the index (it is passed with a function pointer) and
then returns the result to the server. Then the server stores the
result in a file (or on a raster in moving window mode that is under
development).
In this way a new index have only to take care of an area (defined with
a rectangle and a mask) and can be written only defining the C
function. To create a new index then you have only to copy the main
program and change the simple index with your index and pass your
function calling the calculateIndex function... We hope it will be
useful.
Please send comments or suggestions...

Davide Spano, Claudio Porta University of Pisa
--
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953

_______________________________________________
grass5 mailing list
grass5@grass.itc.it
http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think you're right. Serena, can you change this?
All the best.
pc

Helena Mitasova ha scritto:

Just a quick question:

is there any reason why there are some r.li modules named
like this (these would be the first module names that introduce capital
letters):

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE
r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity

compared to this:

r.li.edgedensity (why not r.li.edgeDensity?)
r.li.patchnumber (r.li.patchNUMBER?)

Thanks,

Helena

P.S. Note, that if you use CLI and take advantage of name completion
you would still have to type entire r.li.patchAreaDistribution

Helena Mitasova
Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
Raleigh NC 27695
http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/

- --
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFad4P/NedwLUzIr4RAorjAJ9A2BzpT1Wv19h8yu0MStTNqA76gwCfaG/j
OY86lM0T9kxCGtSO1onpX3o=
=C/55
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

ok, i'll change the names as soon as possible
-serena-

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Paolo Cavallini [mailto:cavallini@faunalia.it]
Inviato: domenica 26 novembre 2006 19.34
A: grass5@grass.itc.it
Cc: Serena Pallecchi; Claudio Porta; Davide Spano
Oggetto: Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS5] r.li (landscape indices)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think you're right. Serena, can you change this?
All the best.
pc

Helena Mitasova ha scritto:

Just a quick question:

is there any reason why there are some r.li modules named
like this (these would be the first module names that introduce capital
letters):

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE
r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity

compared to this:

r.li.edgedensity (why not r.li.edgeDensity?)
r.li.patchnumber (r.li.patchNUMBER?)

Thanks,

Helena

P.S. Note, that if you use CLI and take advantage of name completion
you would still have to type entire r.li.patchAreaDistribution

Helena Mitasova
Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
Raleigh NC 27695
http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/

- --
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFad4P/NedwLUzIr4RAorjAJ9A2BzpT1Wv19h8yu0MStTNqA76gwCfaG/j
OY86lM0T9kxCGtSO1onpX3o=
=C/55
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

hi, I'm thinking about the new names for r.li indexes

All the original names are:

r.li.shannon
r.li.simpson
r.li.edgedensity
r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity
r.li.meanPatchSize
r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV
r.li.meanPixelAttribute
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRange
r.li.dominance
r.li.richness
r.li.patchdensity
r.li.shape
r.li.patchnumber

Do you think it's best:

r.li.shannon
r.li.simpson
r.li.edgedensity
r.li.contrastweightededgedensity
r.li.meanpatchsize
r.li.patchareadistributioncv
r.li.meanpixelattribute
r.li.patchareadistributionsd
r.li.patchareadistributionrange
r.li.dominance
r.li.richness
r.li.patchdensity
r.li.shape
r.li.patchnumber
(I think some names aren't readble)

or:
r.li.shannon
r.li.simpson
r.li.edgedensity
r.li.contrastwed / r.li.cwed
r.li.meanps / r.li.mps
r.li.padcv
r.li.meanpa / r.li.mpa
r.li.padsd
r.li.padrange / r.li.padrk
r.li.dominance
r.li.richness
r.li.patchdensity
r.li.shape
r.li.patchnumber
(I think people don't remember the meant of some names)

Please tell me what you prefer.
-serena-

Quoting Helena Mitasova <hmitaso@unity.ncsu.edu>:

On Nov 26, 2006, at 4:08 PM, serena wrote:

ok, i'll change the names as soon as possible
-serena-

thanks a lot for quick answer and good luck with finding good names,
Helena

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Paolo Cavallini [mailto:cavallini@faunalia.it]
Inviato: domenica 26 novembre 2006 19.34
A: grass5@grass.itc.it
Cc: Serena Pallecchi; Claudio Porta; Davide Spano
Oggetto: Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS5] r.li (landscape indices)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think you're right. Serena, can you change this?
All the best.
pc

Helena Mitasova ha scritto:

Just a quick question:

is there any reason why there are some r.li modules named
like this (these would be the first module names that introduce capital
letters):

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE
r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity

compared to this:

r.li.edgedensity (why not r.li.edgeDensity?)
r.li.patchnumber (r.li.patchNUMBER?)

Thanks,

Helena

P.S. Note, that if you use CLI and take advantage of name completion
you would still have to type entire r.li.patchAreaDistribution

Helena Mitasova
Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
Raleigh NC 27695
http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/

- --
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39) 348-3801953
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFad4P/NedwLUzIr4RAorjAJ9A2BzpT1Wv19h8yu0MStTNqA76gwCfaG/j
OY86lM0T9kxCGtSO1onpX3o=
=C/55
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@grass.itc.it
http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it wrote:

hi, I'm thinking about the new names for r.li indexes

I'd vote for shorter, mostly, but not to short. In detail:

r.li.shannon
r.li.simpson
r.li.edgedensity

r.li.edgedens

r.li.contrastwed / r.li.cwed

the latter

r.li.meanps / r.li.mps

the former

r.li.padcv
r.li.meanpa / r.li.mpa

the former

r.li.padsd
r.li.padrange / r.li.padrk

the former

r.li.dominance
r.li.richness
r.li.patchdensity

r.li.patchdens

r.li.shape
r.li.patchnumber

r.li.patchnm

Best,
Maciek

Hi all,
I think it's better to use capital letters i.e. r.li.patchNumber for
all indexes...

pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it ha scritto:

hi, I'm thinking about the new names for r.li indexes

All the original names are:

r.li.shannon
r.li.simpson
r.li.edgedensity
r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity
r.li.meanPatchSize
r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV
r.li.meanPixelAttribute
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRange
r.li.dominance
r.li.richness
r.li.patchdensity
r.li.shape
r.li.patchnumber

Do you think it's best:

r.li.shannon
r.li.simpson
r.li.edgedensity
r.li.contrastweightededgedensity
r.li.meanpatchsize
r.li.patchareadistributioncv
r.li.meanpixelattribute
r.li.patchareadistributionsd
r.li.patchareadistributionrange
r.li.dominance
r.li.richness
r.li.patchdensity
r.li.shape
r.li.patchnumber
(I think some names aren't readble)

or:
r.li.shannon
r.li.simpson
r.li.edgedensity
r.li.contrastwed / r.li.cwed
r.li.meanps / r.li.mps
r.li.padcv
r.li.meanpa / r.li.mpa
r.li.padsd
r.li.padrange / r.li.padrk
r.li.dominance
r.li.richness
r.li.patchdensity
r.li.shape
r.li.patchnumber
(I think people don't remember the meant of some names)

Please tell me what you prefer.
-serena-

Mixed case is against the GNU naming convention to which GRASS adheres
(I would extend this to program names, not just code):
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Names.html#Names

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 21:53 +0100, Davide Spano wrote:

Hi all,
I think it's better to use capital letters i.e. r.li.patchNumber for
all indexes...

--
Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com> KB8UYR/6
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84 National Map Corps #TNMC-3785

Hi Serena,

before the too long r.li names start to be set in stone
(once folks start to write documentation, it becomes a pain
to rename modules, I suggest to urgently rename some
r.li modules.

I will do it soon - please let's finally agree on the names.
Also two descriptions are missing, see
raster/r.li/TODO

thanks,
Markus

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:36:19PM +0100, Maciej Sieczka wrote:

pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it wrote:
> hi, I'm thinking about the new names for r.li indexes

I'd vote for shorter, mostly, but not to short. In detail:

> r.li.shannon
> r.li.simpson
> r.li.edgedensity

r.li.edgedens

> r.li.contrastwed / r.li.cwed

the latter

> r.li.meanps / r.li.mps

the former

> r.li.padcv
> r.li.meanpa / r.li.mpa

the former

> r.li.padsd
> r.li.padrange / r.li.padrk

the former

> r.li.dominance
> r.li.richness
> r.li.patchdensity

r.li.patchdens

> r.li.shape
> r.li.patchnumber

r.li.patchnm

Best,
Maciek

hi all!

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names. so:

r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity will be r.li.cwed
r.li.dominance will be r.li.cwed
r.li.edgedensity will be r.li.edgedens
r.li.meanPatchSize will be r.li.meanps
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.cwed
r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV will be r.li.padcv
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE will be r.li.padrange
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD will be r.li.padsd
r.li.patchdensity will be r.li.patchdens
r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnm
r.li.richness will be r.li.richness
r.li.shannon will be r.li.shannon
r.li.shape will be r.li.shape
r.li.simpson will be r.li.simpson

-serena

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Markus Neteler [mailto:neteler@itc.it]
Inviato: lunedi 22 gennaio 2007 22.24
A: pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it
Cc: grass-dev@grass.itc.it
Oggetto: Re: R: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS5] r.li (landscape indices)

Hi Serena,

before the too long r.li names start to be set in stone
(once folks start to write documentation, it becomes a pain
to rename modules, I suggest to urgently rename some
r.li modules.

I will do it soon - please let's finally agree on the names.
Also two descriptions are missing, see
raster/r.li/TODO

thanks,
Markus

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:36:19PM +0100, Maciej Sieczka wrote:

pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it wrote:
> hi, I'm thinking about the new names for r.li indexes

I'd vote for shorter, mostly, but not to short. In detail:

> r.li.shannon
> r.li.simpson
> r.li.edgedensity

r.li.edgedens

> r.li.contrastwed / r.li.cwed

the latter

> r.li.meanps / r.li.mps

the former

> r.li.padcv
> r.li.meanpa / r.li.mpa

the former

> r.li.padsd
> r.li.padrange / r.li.padrk

the former

> r.li.dominance
> r.li.richness
> r.li.patchdensity

r.li.patchdens

> r.li.shape
> r.li.patchnumber

r.li.patchnm

Best,
Maciek

serena wrote:

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names. so:

r.li.dominance will be r.li.cwed

r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.cwed

Presumably these two are typos?

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>

serena wrote:

hi all!

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names. so:

r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnm

IMO r.li.patchnum would be more intuitive. Sorry I just noticed it. (:

--Wolf

--

<:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>

sorry,
r.li.dominance will be r.li.dominance
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.meanpa
r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnum

also, because of the structure of r.li, I think is not a good idea to lump
different modules.

-serena-

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: serena [mailto:pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it]
Inviato: mercoledi 24 gennaio 2007 13.18
A: Markus Neteler
Cc: grass-dev@grass.itc.it
Oggetto: R: R: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS5] r.li (landscape indices)

hi all!

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names. so:

r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity will be r.li.cwed
r.li.dominance will be r.li.cwed
r.li.edgedensity will be r.li.edgedens
r.li.meanPatchSize will be r.li.meanps
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.cwed
r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV will be r.li.padcv
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE will be r.li.padrange
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD will be r.li.padsd
r.li.patchdensity will be r.li.patchdens
r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnm
r.li.richness will be r.li.richness
r.li.shannon will be r.li.shannon
r.li.shape will be r.li.shape
r.li.simpson will be r.li.simpson

-serena

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Markus Neteler [mailto:neteler@itc.it]
Inviato: lunedi 22 gennaio 2007 22.24
A: pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it
Cc: grass-dev@grass.itc.it
Oggetto: Re: R: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS5] r.li (landscape indices)

Hi Serena,

before the too long r.li names start to be set in stone
(once folks start to write documentation, it becomes a pain
to rename modules, I suggest to urgently rename some
r.li modules.

I will do it soon - please let's finally agree on the names.
Also two descriptions are missing, see
raster/r.li/TODO

thanks,
Markus

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:36:19PM +0100, Maciej Sieczka wrote:

pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it wrote:
> hi, I'm thinking about the new names for r.li indexes

I'd vote for shorter, mostly, but not to short. In detail:

> r.li.shannon
> r.li.simpson
> r.li.edgedensity

r.li.edgedens

> r.li.contrastwed / r.li.cwed

the latter

> r.li.meanps / r.li.mps

the former

> r.li.padcv
> r.li.meanpa / r.li.mpa

the former

> r.li.padsd
> r.li.padrange / r.li.padrk

the former

> r.li.dominance
> r.li.richness
> r.li.patchdensity

r.li.patchdens

> r.li.shape
> r.li.patchnumber

r.li.patchnm

Best,
Maciek

serena wrote:

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names.

FYI, the longest historic* names we have are 15-17 chars long:
d.font.freetype
r.resamp.interp
r.terraflow.short
v.build.polylines

I think it is a mistake to shorten to the point where the module name
doesn't make any sense. ie a natural shortening of a word or an acronym
is ok, but leaving out vowels is bad, and mixed word+acronyms are
confusing. Also we should avoid suffixes like -ing, -s, -ion.

so:

[including Serena's updates]

r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity will be r.li.cwed
r.li.dominance will be r.li.dominance

nice

r.li.edgedensity will be r.li.edgedens

IMO r.li.edgedensity is preferable (16 chars).

r.li.meanPatchSize will be r.li.meanps
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.meanpa

similar enough to be confusing?
what about r.li.patchsize or r.li.mps ??

I don't have very good ideas about the other one:
  r.li.pixelatt ?? r.li.meanpixatt ?? r.li.mpa ??
  (of those I prefer r.li.mpa, ....)

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV will be r.li.padcv
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE will be r.li.padrange
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD will be r.li.padsd

nice

r.li.patchdensity will be r.li.patchdens

IMO r.li.patchdensity is preferable (17 chars).

r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnum
r.li.richness will be r.li.richness
r.li.shannon will be r.li.shannon
r.li.shape will be r.li.shape
r.li.simpson will be r.li.simpson

nice.

also, because of the structure of r.li, I think is not a good idea to
lump different modules.

ok.

[*] "The longest historic names we have are 15-17 chars long"

These new modules are longer (21,18,15):
v.lidar.edgedetection
v.lidar.growing
v.lidar.correction

suggestion:

v.lidar.edgedetection -> v.lidar.edgedetect or v.lidar.edge ?
(it is a shame to change as "edgedetection" explains the module well)

v.lidar.growing -> v.lidar.classify
(I think "region growing" is misleading & conflicts with GRASS's common
  use of "region" for raster bounds/resolution; -ing is bad grammar)

v.lidar.correction -> v.lidar.filter

2c,
Hamish

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 12:45 +1300, Hamish wrote:

FYI, the longest historic* names we have are 15-17 chars long:
d.font.freetype

d.font.ttf? While it will do more than just TTF, the help command could
explain that it can use any font format FreeType can use.

r.resamp.interp

I don't know if this can be shortened further without becoming cryptic.

r.terraflow.short

Ideally, r.terraflow and r.terraflow.short should be combined with int
or float output options. The code is already in a common directory.

v.build.polylines

v.build.lines?

v.lidar.edgedetection -> v.lidar.edgedetect or v.lidar.edge ?
(it is a shame to change as "edgedetection" explains the module well)

IMO, v.lidar.edge is best.

v.lidar.growing -> v.lidar.classify
(I think "region growing" is misleading & conflicts with GRASS's common
  use of "region" for raster bounds/resolution; -ing is bad grammar)

v.lidar.correction -> v.lidar.filter

Or v.lidar.correct? You'd know the best naming convention for this
module better than I. I've only recently began to process raw LIDAR
data and haven't use the module, yet. Very soon, though! :slight_smile:

--
Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com> KB8UYR/6
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84 National Map Corps #TNMC-3785

Hi all,

These new modules are longer (21,18,15):
v.lidar.edgedetection
v.lidar.growing
v.lidar.correction

suggestion:

v.lidar.edgedetection -> v.lidar.edgedetect or v.lidar.edge ?
(it is a shame to change as "edgedetection" explains the module well)

I don't like to loose the name either. v.lidar.edgedetect is for sure a good name too since it still explains the module but it is still 18 char long. So, I think there is only one solution: v.lidar.edge

v.lidar.growing -> v.lidar.classify
(I think "region growing" is misleading & conflicts with GRASS's common
use of "region" for raster bounds/resolution; -ing is bad grammar)

Yes, that's probably the best name.

v.lidar.correction -> v.lidar.filter

The true lidar filter is composed by the three modules all together. So, I think this is a bad name.
Maybe v.lidar.correct as Brad suggested is better.

Saludos,
Roberto.

--
Roberto Antolín Sánchez
Politecnico di Milano – Polo Regionale di Como
(Laboratorio di Geomatica V2.8)
Via Valleggio, 11 – 22100 Como, Italy
tel: +39 031 332 7533 || fax: +39 031 332 7519 email: roberto.antolin@polimi.it

Hi,

I would really get this one solved... we are currently updating the GRASS book
(3rd edition) and it would be a pain to either not write about r.li or to have
the names wrong.

Hamish wrote on 01/30/2007 12:45 AM:

serena wrote:
  

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names.
    

...

so:
    

[including Serena's updates]

r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity will be r.li.cwed
r.li.dominance will be r.li.dominance
    
nice

r.li.edgedensity will be r.li.edgedens
    
IMO r.li.edgedensity is preferable (16 chars).

r.li.meanPatchSize will be r.li.meanps
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.meanpa
    
similar enough to be confusing?
what about r.li.patchsize or r.li.mps ??

I don't have very good ideas about the other one:
  r.li.pixelatt ?? r.li.meanpixatt ?? r.li.mpa ??
  (of those I prefer r.li.mpa, ....)

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV will be r.li.padcv
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE will be r.li.padrange
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD will be r.li.padsd
    
nice

r.li.patchdensity will be r.li.patchdens
    
IMO r.li.patchdensity is preferable (17 chars).

r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnum
r.li.richness will be r.li.richness
r.li.shannon will be r.li.shannon
r.li.shape will be r.li.shape
r.li.simpson will be r.li.simpson
    
nice.

also, because of the structure of r.li, I think is not a good idea to
lump different modules.
    
ok.
  
I mean, we can discuss this forever or just finally do it.

thanks,
Markus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Serena wrote me she has a new version available.
Serena, could you please send it at your earliest convenience?
pc

Markus Neteler ha scritto:

Hi,

I would really get this one solved... we are currently updating the
GRASS book
(3rd edition) and it would be a pain to either not write about r.li or
to have
the names wrong.

Hamish wrote on 01/30/2007 12:45 AM:

serena wrote:

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names.
    

...

so:
    

[including Serena's updates]

r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity will be r.li.cwed
r.li.dominance will be r.li.dominance
    
nice

r.li.edgedensity will be r.li.edgedens
    
IMO r.li.edgedensity is preferable (16 chars).

r.li.meanPatchSize will be r.li.meanps
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.meanpa
    
similar enough to be confusing?
what about r.li.patchsize or r.li.mps ??

I don't have very good ideas about the other one:
  r.li.pixelatt ?? r.li.meanpixatt ?? r.li.mpa ??
  (of those I prefer r.li.mpa, ....)

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV will be r.li.padcv
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE will be r.li.padrange
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD will be r.li.padsd
    
nice

r.li.patchdensity will be r.li.patchdens
    
IMO r.li.patchdensity is preferable (17 chars).

r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnum
r.li.richness will be r.li.richness
r.li.shannon will be r.li.shannon
r.li.shape will be r.li.shape
r.li.simpson will be r.li.simpson
    
nice.

also, because of the structure of r.li, I think is not a good idea to
lump different modules.

- --
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini@faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFxz4j/NedwLUzIr4RAptiAJ9r8HSq7TsOFKz8XBwwVTLslFatUgCfX8OB
1rJDKnaY4P34jezQxVjRcPk=
=yogp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

ok, I'll change the names as Hamish suggests, but at this moment my pc is out of service and so I can't update r.li in the server. I can only send to you the new version of r.li.
-serena-

Quoting Markus Neteler <neteler@itc.it>:

Hi,

I would really get this one solved... we are currently updating the
GRASS book
(3rd edition) and it would be a pain to either not write about r.li or
to have
the names wrong.

Hamish wrote on 01/30/2007 12:45 AM:

serena wrote:

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names.

...

so:

[including Serena's updates]

r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity will be r.li.cwed
r.li.dominance will be r.li.dominance

nice

r.li.edgedensity will be r.li.edgedens

IMO r.li.edgedensity is preferable (16 chars).

r.li.meanPatchSize will be r.li.meanps
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.meanpa

similar enough to be confusing?
what about r.li.patchsize or r.li.mps ??

I don't have very good ideas about the other one:
  r.li.pixelatt ?? r.li.meanpixatt ?? r.li.mpa ??
  (of those I prefer r.li.mpa, ....)

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV will be r.li.padcv
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE will be r.li.padrange
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD will be r.li.padsd

nice

r.li.patchdensity will be r.li.patchdens

IMO r.li.patchdensity is preferable (17 chars).

r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnum
r.li.richness will be r.li.richness
r.li.shannon will be r.li.shannon
r.li.shape will be r.li.shape
r.li.simpson will be r.li.simpson

nice.

also, because of the structure of r.li, I think is not a good idea to
lump different modules.

ok.

I mean, we can discuss this forever or just finally do it.

thanks,
Markus

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Serena,

if your PC won't work in the foreseeable future, please send the patches.
Thanks
Markus

pallecch@cli.di.unipi.it wrote on 02/05/2007 03:28 PM:

ok, I'll change the names as Hamish suggests, but at this moment my pc is out of service and so I can't update r.li in the server. I can only send to you the new version of r.li.
-serena-

Quoting Markus Neteler <neteler@itc.it>:

Hi,

I would really get this one solved... we are currently updating the
GRASS book
(3rd edition) and it would be a pain to either not write about r.li or
to have
the names wrong.

Hamish wrote on 01/30/2007 12:45 AM:

serena wrote:

If there aren't problems I'll change r.li names.

...

so:

[including Serena's updates]

r.li.contrastWeightedEdgeDensity will be r.li.cwed
r.li.dominance will be r.li.dominance

nice

r.li.edgedensity will be r.li.edgedens

IMO r.li.edgedensity is preferable (16 chars).

r.li.meanPatchSize will be r.li.meanps
r.li.meanPixelAttribute will be r.li.meanpa

similar enough to be confusing?
what about r.li.patchsize or r.li.mps ??

I don't have very good ideas about the other one:
  r.li.pixelatt ?? r.li.meanpixatt ?? r.li.mpa ??
  (of those I prefer r.li.mpa, ....)

r.li.patchAreaDistributionCV will be r.li.padcv
r.li.patchAreaDistributionRANGE will be r.li.padrange
r.li.patchAreaDistributionSD will be r.li.padsd

nice

r.li.patchdensity will be r.li.patchdens

IMO r.li.patchdensity is preferable (17 chars).

r.li.patchnumber will be r.li.patchnum
r.li.richness will be r.li.richness
r.li.shannon will be r.li.shannon
r.li.shape will be r.li.shape
r.li.simpson will be r.li.simpson

nice.

also, because of the structure of r.li, I think is not a good idea to
lump different modules.

ok.

I mean, we can discuss this forever or just finally do it.

thanks,
Markus

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.