[Os-project-managers] Question about OSoL and OSrL

[Horand Gassmann]

Kipp Martin <kmartin at chicagobooth.edu> wrote:

> Hi Jun:
>
>> Let's clarify first: the options in the OSoL file is *really* options to
>> be used in optimization; they are NOT descriptions about the option file.
>> So obviously, the three suggested elements, by the fact that they are
>> "borrowed" from OSiL, are descriptions of what the OSoL file is.
>> Is it necessary? Or is it that important?
>> The reason that they are in OSiL is because we think they are necessary
>> given the instance is usually quite important. But we didn't even put
>> <author> there, because <source> is just general enough and
>> we don't want to over engineer it with too heavy a structure. After all
>> they are mainly for archiving and reporting purposes, and not for the
>> optimization purposes.
>
> I think an option file can have an "identity." For example, we might be
> running experiments where we want to test the performance of an
> algorithm given different sets of options and starting values. In other
> words I want to test my algorithm on, for example, 10 different option
> files. In this case I would want to clearly identify each option file
> with a <name> and <description>.  In this case my <description> really
> is about the option file.  For example
>
> <description>test with loose tolerances</description>
>
>
> <description>test with tight tolerances</description>

...or even, as I saw in the blpmpec file

<description>this is Nevo's starting point</description>

<description>This is my starting point</description>

I wish I had documented some of the reasons behind putting _empty_  
starting points behind some of the option files I used in the unit  
test. It must have had something to do with a parsing error, but today  
it bombed for a completely different reason.

> Then in the solver options the various tolerances differ. So indeed I
> want to describe my file.
>
> We might also want to link an option file with an osil file. We could do
> this with  <description> or <source>.

This would indeed give us a way thst is not strictly codified and yet  
is completely transparent and easiliy accessible. I would venture to  
say that every file we put into our repository should have a  
documentation section. I think that would be extremely useful.

Cheers

gus


> Cheers
>
>
>>
>> Jun
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Horand Gassmann" <Horand.Gassmann at dal.ca>
>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:11 PM
>> To: <os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Os-project-managers] Question about OSoL and OSrL
>>
>>> Kipp Martin <kmartin at chicagobooth.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gus:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that I am making more work for myself, but it occurred to me
>>>>> that the OSoL (and OSrL) schemas are lacking the file information we
>>>>> provide in the OSiL files in form of the <instanceHeader>. Trying to
>>>>> debug the OSoL parser and the unit test I am forced to look at old
>>>>> osol files that I wrote to test the osol parser that existed at that
>>>>> time, and it would now be useful to have had some information as to
>>>>> what I was thinking at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose to add the following optional information:
>>>>>
>>>>> <optionHeader>
>>>>>      <name>
>>>>>      <author>
>>>>>      <source>
>>>>>      <description>
>>>>>
>>>>> (and similarly for <resultHeader>). I also propose to add <author> to
>>>>> the <instanceHeader> in OSiL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this is optional stuff, I hope we can treat this as a consent
>>>>> agenda item.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> I consent and think it is a good idea. But where would it go? Would
>>>> <optionHeader> be a child of <general> or would it go before <general>?
>>>
>>> My thinking is that it should go before <general>, just for better
>>> visibility. But I do not feel strongly about that.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> gus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Os-project-managers mailing list
>>> Os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org
>>> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/os-project-managers
>>>
>
>
> --
> Kipp Martin
> Professor of Operations Research
> and Computing Technology
> Booth School of Business
> University of Chicago
> 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue
> Chicago, IL 60637
> 773-702-7456
> kmartin at chicagobooth.edu
> http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/bio.aspx?person_id=12825325568
> http://projects.coin-or.org/OS
>
> _______________________________________________
> Os-project-managers mailing list
> Os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/os-project-managers
>
>