Talk:ELKI

JDM
Does ELKI support the Java Data Mining standard? --87.174.80.103 (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know: no. JDM seems to be designed by the industry to facilitate data exchange between business applications, which has little priority for a research software such as ELKI. It should however be easily possible to write import/export components for JDM. --Chire (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * JDM 2.0 has been discontinued. Seems to be dead, this standard. --Chire (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

License?
Does anyone know under what license this software is distributed? pgr94 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The latest answer I have is "undecided, but free for academic use if you cite". --Chire (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The latest release 0.4.0 is AGPLv3 licensed, an open source license. --Chire (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

COI declared
COI should be explicitly declared as the major contributor is a student from the group that proposed the ideas/software.

For a relatively new idea/software that has not gained wide popularity, do we really need a dedicated wiki page, or a page on the developer's website should suffice?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.72.207 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The COI has always been declared appropriately since the beginning of the article (e.g. in the deletion discussion). I understand that you are unhappy about this revert of mine, but don't wikihound me - just do that edit properly (e.g. with an explanation of why your reference is more appropriate than the one that was in the article before). Replacing references without reasoning in an "edit summary" is bound to be reverted, sorry. --Chire (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference section may be a bit unbalanced, with papers exclusively from a single group (?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.72.207 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The references inform about properties of the software, backing particular the individual claims. There is no appropriate way of backing these with other sources than the original publications associated with it. See the earlier deletion discussion, all of this has been discussed before. And seriously: don't WP:Wikihound. Attacking an other editor because he reverted one of your changes (for the valid reason of you replacing an existing reference without giving an argument why it was replaced) is not appropriate. --Chire (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)