You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Re "observational unit" and "level", I still think a better definition would be useful, perhaps in 2.3, perhaps in 3.4.
I wonder if the observations about denormalization (parag 3 of 3.4 and last parag of 4.1) might be worth elaborating on? Or maybe not... the examples of join in 5 might be enough.
I really like the "tidy data" framework and the way it highlights the cleanness and unity of the tools you've developed.
On p. 22, line 4, I think the comma after "data" is inappropriate because the "which" starts a restrictive clause.
About the ETL literature, I agree that a lot of it is either commercial or very IT-ey (as opposed to CS-ey), but there does seem to be a fair amount of discussion around data warehouse schemas. Some other papers I've come across (I don't claim to have done a serious literature search!) include Boehnlein, Vassiliadis et al., and Vassiliadis (p. 9ff talks about the "pivoting problem").
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Re "observational unit" and "level", I still think a better definition would be useful, perhaps in 2.3, perhaps in 3.4.
I wonder if the observations about denormalization (parag 3 of 3.4 and last parag of 4.1) might be worth elaborating on? Or maybe not... the examples of join in 5 might be enough.
I really like the "tidy data" framework and the way it highlights the cleanness and unity of the tools you've developed.
On p. 22, line 4, I think the comma after "data" is inappropriate because the "which" starts a restrictive clause.
About the ETL literature, I agree that a lot of it is either commercial or very IT-ey (as opposed to CS-ey), but there does seem to be a fair amount of discussion around data warehouse schemas. Some other papers I've come across (I don't claim to have done a serious literature search!) include Boehnlein, Vassiliadis et al., and Vassiliadis (p. 9ff talks about the "pivoting problem").
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: