Re: Proposal for representing Aggregate Statistical Data

*please ignore my post on this thread was meant to be a reply to another
thread (subject: off topic)
sent by mistake

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:08 PM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Danbri
> You are missing the point of this thread (sorry just seen this emai)
>
> There is no complaint about Dagstuhl being made
> Please read carefully from the beginning, if you are interested-
>
> The point is that people who read about the workshop through the report
> are misinformed, about KG and about a bunch of other things
>
> The complaint is about poor research direction and poor information about
> the
> state of the art in the research direction in KR, etc etc. This is painful
> but true.
>
> What is the point of having workshop reports published, if they dont tell
> the truth
> or even in the case when they just report the abstracts, these are
> painfully
> superficial and inadequate to represent the state of the art and research
> challenges, etc etc etc
> Cheers
>
> PDM
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:59 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 11:04, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2019 03:22, Michael Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>> The naming of a type as StatisticalPopulation makes sense when talking
>>> about people (or possibly other living things) with respect to a location
>>> -- the focus of DataCommons.org.  There are of course many other kinds of
>>> statistical data not focused on human characteristics that in the public
>>> domain, relating to manufacturing production, air quality, road haulage,
>>> etc.  When reporting about non-living phenomenon, the term
>>> StatisticalPopulation doesn't sound right.
>>>
>>> Hello Michael,
>>>
>>> The term Statistical Population is used in statistics for any group, or
>>> notional group, on which measurements are made or from which a sample is
>>> drawn so that measurements can be made, see
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_population
>>>
>> Thanks - exactly. Since we are using the statistical terminology, and
>> many readers won't have encountered it, we ought to link to that Wikipedia
>> entry or similar to provide more context/background.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>