On 28/01/08 16:22, Michael Barton wrote:

On Jan 28, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Moritz Lennert wrote:

On 27/01/08 20:30, Michael Barton wrote:
v.univar only works with points. But since it is calculating
stats on a field in the attributes table, it should work the same
for all vector objects. Can we get rid of the limitation that it
only works with points?

There was some debate [1] about the statistical validity of working
 with the other types, as the way it was programmed, the statistics
 were calculated with weights which corresponded to line length /
area surface .

I guess we might want to distinguish between a v.univar which works
on the actual vector objects from a v.db.univar which works on any
 arbitrary attribute (or combination of attributes). We could write
a C-replacement of the current v.db.univar script on the base of
the code I have for the classification algorithms used in v.class.

AFAICT, v.univar does not calculate anything from vector topology,
only from an attribute column.
[...]
An attribute is the same whether it's linked to a point, line, or
area.

v.univar currently calculates as follows for lines and areas, even though the results are never printed (main.c):

[lines:]
206                             l = Vect_line_length ( Points );
207                             sum += l*val;
208                             sumsq += l*val*val;
209                             sum_abs += l * fabs (val);
210                             total_size += l;

[areas:]
270                             a = Vect_get_area_area ( &Map, area );
271                             sum += a*val;
272                             sumsq += a*val*val;
273                             sum_abs += a * fabs (val);
274                             total_size += a;

285             if ( (otype & GV_LINES) || (otype & GV_AREA) ) {
286                 mean = sum / total_size;
287                 mean_abs = sum_abs / total_size;

So the mean is actually a weighted mean with the area as weight. I don't
really no why Radim coded it like this at the time, and I think we
should change this so that it just uses unweighted feature counts, just
as Roger suggested at the time. Try the attached (untested) patch.

One thing that does potentially matter, though, is whether to use the features or the attribute columns as a base. If you have several features with the same cat value, this can make a difference, as in the former case they will all be counted individually, whereas in the latter case, they will only be counted once. If each of the features has an indvididual meaning than the former case seems more correct, but if not (e.g. each island of the Philippines counted separately in a table which lists population by country). Obviously we could just say that it is up to the user to make sure that the map data is correct, i.e. if we take the above example, there should only be one centroid linked to data per country).

The way the routines are written in v.class, they take an arbitrary array of floats, so it is up to the individual modules to decide how to create this array.


Moritz

Attachment: v.univar.diff.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Reply via email to