JuliaGaussianProcesses
Multi-output kernel naming & consistency
Currently there are several different multi-output kernels:
IndependentMOKernel, LatentFactorMOKernel, IntrinsicCoregionMOKernel, LinearMixingModelKernel.
There was some debate about renaming
LinearMixingModelKernel
LinearMixingMOKernel
because
- A kernel is not a model so we should drop the
Model. - Currently the majority of MO kernels have the
MOin the name, and we should be consistent.
The discussion did not belong on that PR, so teased out into its own issue here.
I am for removing the MO from all kernels and the Model from LinearMixingModelKernel for consistency.
One issue with this @devmotion is that things like IndependentMOKernel would become IndependentKernel, which is quite ambiguous.
My impression was that we don't really want IndependentMOKernel in its current form (https://github.com/JuliaGaussianProcesses/KernelFunctions.jl/issues/325), so we might want to choose a different more descriptive name anyway. Apart from that, I think the naming would still be consistent if it is called e.g. IndependentMultiOutputKernel and MO is dropped from all other kernels that clearly are kernels for multiple outputs and where there is no need to disambiguate them from a corresponding single output version.
Fair enough. I'm very happy to bow to whatever the consensus is on this as I don't have particularly strong feelings either way.
I don't like abbreviations used in programming so I'm in favor of removing the MO from the concrete types' names and using MultiOutput whenever there is ambiguity.
Off-topic:
Is it too much to ask for renaming ColVecs to ColumnVectors and RowVecs to RowVectors? :pleading_face: :sweat_smile:
Is it too much to ask for renaming ColVecs to ColumnVectors and RowVecs to RowVectors? 🥺 😅
Not at all! I would be very much in favour of that.
I'd be happy with spelling out IndependentMultiOutputKernel but why would you keep it there but not for e.g. LinearMixingMultiOutputKernel?
