363 | | We have variables which are question related and variables which are not question related. This is evident from the comments above. |
| 363 | We have variables which are question related and variables which are not question related. This is evident from the comments above. I suggest these are fairly good guiding principles: |
| 364 | |
| 365 | 1. Variables (bottom leaf ones) which are not question related should be understandable by reading upwards from the bottom leaf until you encounter its top parent variable element. That one branch should contain all the information required to make sense of the variable. You should '''''not''''' have to read adjacent variables to gain critical information. |
| 366 | 1. Variables (bottom leaf ones) which are question related should be understandable by reading upwards from the bottom leaf until you encounter its top question element. That one branch should contain all the information required to make sense of the variable. You should '''''not''''' have to read adjacent variables '''''or''''' questions to gain critical information. |
| 367 | |
| 368 | Of course, context information is held above these "top" parents (eg: which questionnaire is being focused upon), but this information applies to everything within one file in any case.[[BR]] |
| 369 | If we can manage to implement these principles, I suggest we have a reasonable looking ontology tree that would be derivable by machine. The alternative means some human intervention (case by case judgement). There may need to be an element of this, but hopefully minimal at this stage. |
| 370 | |
| 371 | |