Software for developing defining keys

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → Software for developing defining keys

Salix, 21.12.2007 5:30

Who can recommend programs that make it easier to work with defining keys (tables)? The problem is that when the key is large, then changing the numbering, adding and deleting tags, say, at the beginning of the list, leads to numbering permutations in the entire table. Manually doing this is long and boring, especially if such permutations have to be done often.

An additional request: that the text can be easily copied to the Vin-Word at the end of the work.

This post was edited by Salix - 12/21/2007 05: 31

Comments

21.12.2007 22:54, Bad Den

No. I understand that this means solving other problems.
I made up the defining keys for up to 50 tezas. Without any restrictions and any special equipment. experience. This activity is really time-consuming. I think that to make the determinant more than 50 tez. (say 100) and WITHOUT errors, it will be much harder.
Goal: to get the text of the determinant without errors in the links between theses.
Task 1: establish a strong link between the thesis and the antithesis, independent of numbering
Task 2: the ability to change the numbering of each thesis (or update the determinant) during the creation process.

Then it is generally easier to move away from the numbering of theses and antitheses.

I will quote one course work:
"The vast majority of modern computer keys are step – by-step-using one feature at each step (in contrast to one-step keys, in which the characteristics of an instance are entered for a whole set of features, and then the program attempts to diagnose). At each step, the program should create the most favorable conditions for the user to select a feature. It is best to present the features not in the standard order, but in descending order of their diagnostic value-a mathematical assessment of the potential to divide the existing set of taxa into minimal subsets. To properly understand the essence of the feature, it is advisable to focus not on the text description of the feature, but on a striking explanatory figure. If there are a large number of attributes, it makes sense to divide them into groups. When you switch to selecting a state within a feature, illustrations are even more necessary. Additional features at this point are the possibility of multiple selection (specifying several states at once, if you are not sure about choosing only one) and special marks for those states that cannot occur in the taxa of the current set. At the final step of the step, the program usually reduces the current set of taxa, leaving only those that can have the specified trait state. If there are 2 or more such taxa, the program should re-evaluate the available features and proceed to the next step.
A slightly different approach is more promising, in which the original set of taxa is not reduced at all, and at each step only the probabilities of belonging to each of the taxa of the "image" of the defined instance accumulated over the past steps are recalculated. This approach allows you to get the correct definition even if the user makes a mistake in terms of attributes. After completing the step, the user should find out the result without any additional actions – see the number of taxa remaining in the reduced set or the list of taxa that have the highest probability of matching the entered attributes (in the second approach). The most advanced programs also allow you to view images of taxa from the current set. If the user detects an error in the already entered attributes, the program should allow "rollback" – a return for one or more steps to bypass the error."

If you are interested, you can view these works here:

Lelekov S. G. Opredelenie biologicheskikh obektov s ispol'zovaniem programmnoi sistemy TAKHEKH [Determination of biological objects using the TAKHEX software system]. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 49-56.
Lobanov A. L., Dianov M. B. BIKEY interactive computer diagnostic system and its use in entomology // Entomol. obozr. 1994. Vol. 73, issue no. 2.P. 465-478.
Lobanov A. L. Dialogovye komp'uternye biologicheskie diagnosticheskie sistemy BIKEY5 i BIKEY6 [Interactive computer biological diagnostic systems BIKEY5 and BIKEY6]. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 61-66.
Lobanov A. L. Komp'yuternye opredelitel ' v biologii: rezultat 30-letnoi evolyutsii [Computer determinants in biology: the result of 30-year evolution]. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 51-55.
Makarov K. V., Makarov A.V. _KEY-a set of programs for preparing determinants / / Databases and computer graphics in zoological research. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 76-79.

21.12.2007 23:37, Salix

Adamov, yes, that's what I meant. Roughly speaking, so that new theses with automatic numbering are created by clicking "Enter", and the links at the end of the theses are fixed and then changed if these theses are changed in the list. The fact that such programs exist, I have heard for a long time, "live" never seen. I think this can be implemented even at the macro level in word.

To Bad Den:
There are different keys for different purposes and opportunities. Here, the question is about classic, old and primitive dichotomous keys that are printed on paper, and not used interactively from a computer. It's not about the merits of both, just... we need exactly dichotomous ones:

1. Teza. ..... 2
-Antithesis. . . . . 4

By the way, you can create a separate topic and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different types of defining keys. The topic is interesting, there is something to talk about.

This post was edited by Salix - 12/21/2007 23: 38