#378 Improved PostProcesser outcome labels

[Robert A. Morris]

I'm troubled by the outcome labels, though I can't propose better ones. The first thing is that "CURATED" as the past tense of the verb "to curate" does not, in conversational English imply that a change was made. Thus I would expect "curated" to mean simply that some workflow actually was run. I think what's wanted here is something like "proposed value." Similarly "unable curate" might be "no proposal for correction" along with the implication that this the datum is valid but not correct.

This is set down in http://wiki.filteredpush.org/wiki/AnalysisPostProcessing#Notes

[Robert A. Morris]

My gut feeling is that the labels should either all be nouns or all be adjectives, but that may lead to unnecessary length. If the Description sheet and other documentation is adequately descriptive, this particular grammatical pickiness might be unimportant. Therefore, my first cut, accompanied by brief description, is:

CURATED --> PROPOSAL relevant yellow fields have proposed data

CORRECT --> CORRECT relevant green fields have been determined correct

UNABLE_DETERMINE_VALIDITY --> VALIDITY_UNKNOWN relevant grey fields are of unknown validity

UNABLE_CURATE --> NO_PROPOSAL relevant red fields have been determined to fail to meet some rule of the workflow, but no proposal for correcting them was generated

[Robert A. Morris]

At some point in the meeting kurator meeting of 2015-04-28 Tim came up with better suggested names, but I can't find them.