I am new to stackoverflow and was completing my profile. I don't see any information on what 'Title' means to my profile. What kind of info should I put up there?
There isn't any description present on that page, and a Google search gives very irrelevant results.
Title is not used much on Stack Overflow though it is still common in more formal scenarios.
It's an entry on a form where a person can indicate an honorific that describes them or that they have earned and prefer to be known by. It's a quaint thing from decades ago when people would indicate Mr., Mrs., Prof., Dr., Lord, Your Majesty etc.
Related
In Scopus one can click into a publication and see what other subsequent publications reference the preceding one.
The term “references” in a papers, it is clear that it is the works that the authors suggest the reader “carry backward to” those works for further context / background in relation / comparison to their own new works.
But in Scopus it’s nice that it allows the reader to “carry forward to” subsequent publications which use that paper as a reference. It is this term that is unclear to me and seems to not have a common name.
Profer (proference) with an O not an E, infer (inferences)? Referent? Produced works/products? The first name may be obsolete supposedly though not sure, but can’t see why.
This is similar to but not the same post that I asked before, as I hadn’t given a specific context like in the site Scopus as in this current post above. Here is my related post: https://english.stackexchange.com/q/584642/440001
What’s more is that there is another post where the poster used the words “outward citations” and the respondents didn’t know what poster was talking about: Scopus outward citations?
Further there is a post that is out there that asks for the opposite of reference data: What is the opposite of "Reference Data"?
Is there any historical terminology that is out there that has ever been used before about this topic? Thanks!
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am currently developing a Website which allows users to create Blog-posts and was wondering whether I should allow them to delete their Posts from the Database. On one hand, they could be writing illegal stuff and delete it shortly afterwards, which would make it impossible to follow up on this issue afterwards, on the other I might have to provide such a feature. I was thinking about implementing a "soft-deletion", which allows users to mark a posts as deleted and deleting all marked posts after a couple of weeks.
My question now is whether this approach would be legal, especially considering the GDPR. How would you go about it?
I'm aware that I might be in the wrong community (Stackoverflow) here and am open for suggestions for other forums.
Edit
The website is hosted and has its Guests mostly in Germany. Does anybody know about the lokal laws and how they play for this problem?
GDPR is only concerned with personal data, which is data connected with people, so if I write a blog post that doesn't contain any personal data, GDPR simply doesn't enter into it except for identifying me as its author. With that link removed, it's just regular data.
If you consider the blog post along with its author identification as a single item, then it would count as personal data, and they could ask for it to be deleted. There is some wiggle room for practicality here though. You can reasonably do as you suggest and soft delete now and really delete later, but you should make it clear in your privacy policy that that is what you are going to do. You could cite a reasonable case of legitimate interest to allow for letting data fall off the end of backup cycles, allowing a grace period for them to change their mind, accidental deletion, and abuse.
A separate issue is copyright, which remains with the author regardless of whether they are credited (unless for example they write it under contract to you and waived their rights or assigned ownership to you).
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
Any body knows of a good ICD10 API to do diagnostic code lookups that can recommend. I am currently building a simple app to tag patients with medical condition and the idea is to have a lookup API where one can type asthma for example and get back all the different ICD10 codes for asthma
My R package, icd converts ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to descriptions, in addition to its main function of finding comorbidities. Documentation at https://jackwasey.github.io/icd/ , and code at https://github.com/jackwasey/icd . It does this using the function explain_code. It currently uses ICD-10-CM, i.e. the USA billing adapted ICD-10 code set, which in general is more specific than the canonical WHO version, but does have some areas of less detail.
E.g. WHO ICD-10 has HIV disease resulting in Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia as a subdivision for HIV infection, whereas ICD-10-CM just has HIV. On the other hand, ICD-10-CM has Sucked into jet engine, subsequent encounter whereas the WHO is happy with the terribly vague: Person on ground injured in air transport accident.
The volume of data for all the descriptions is not very high, just handful of megabytes, so although an API may seem convenient, you might consider just having all the data and not having to ping some random server.
I'm going to assume you're ignoring all of the usual stuff around variations of spelling of medical terms, proper terms vs. colloquialisms, labels vs. descriptions, etc. that get to be a pain with term / code finders.
If you want to use a hosted option and are OK with the terms of use, you could use UMLS (https://uts.nlm.nih.gov/home.html#apidocumentation). It's a great resource, but the use case you're describing isn't necessarily what it's intended to address.
Personally - and I usually don't like to roll my own stuff - I'd consider doing your own thing. You could do something focused on your needs and tailor it to any specific behaviors you might want (like preferring specific codes based on an organization - EX: billing preference). You could also probably make it far, far more ... perky ... and address short forms of terms (EX: synonyms like "DVT") or misspellings ("asthma" vs. "athsma"). If you go that route, I'd suggest considering getting your hands on the ICD-10 code info and then mashing it into Elastic Search. You could extend the data by mixing it with other info and really make it hum. And Elastic is wicked fast.
That's just my $0.02, though.
There is a project called "Unified Medical Language System (UMLS)", funded by NIH and apparently they are working on a RESTful Web API for medical terms.
https://documentation.uts.nlm.nih.gov/rest/home.html
I didn't work with their API yest and the samples I am seeing on their website sounds like they are more SNOMED-CT oriented.
The option I would go for is to get the whole ICD-10-CM from CMS and build my own Web API.
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/2016-ICD-10-CM-and-GEMs.html
you can check the full documentation from WHO https://icd.who.int/icdapi
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been thinking about setting up some sort of library for all our internally developed software at my organisation. I would like collect any ideas the good SO folk may have on this topic.
I figure, what is the point in instilling into developers the benefits of writing reusable code, if on the next project the first thing developers do is file -> new due to a lack of knowledge of what code is already out there to be reused.
As an added benefit, I think that just by having a library like this would encourage developers to think more in terms of reusability when writing code
I would like to keep this library as simple as possible, perhaps my only two requirements being:
Search facility
Usable for many types of components: assemblies, web services, etc
I see the basic information required on each asset/component to be:
Name & version
Description / purpose
Dependencies
Would you record any more information?
What would be the best platform for this i.e., wiki, forum, etc?
What would make a software library like this successful vs unsuccessful?
All ideas are greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Edit:
Found these similar questions after posting:
How do you ensure code is reused correctly?
How do you foster the use of shared components in your organization?
Sounds like there is no central repository of code available at your organization. Depending on what you do this could be because of compatmentalization of the knowledge due to security restrictions, the fact that external vendor code is included in some/all of the solutions, or your company has not yet seen the benefits of getting people to reuse, refactor, and evangelize the benefits of such a repository.
The common attributes of solutions I have seen work at mutiple corporations are a multi pronged approach.
Buy in at some level from the management. Usually it's a CTO/CIO that the idea resonates with and they claim it's a good thing and don't give any money to fund it but they won't sand in your way if they are aware that someone is going to champion the idea before they start soliciting code and consolidating it somewhere.
Some list of projects and the collateral available in english. Seen this on wikis, on sharepoint lists, in text files within a source repository. All of them share the common attribute of some sort of front end search server that allows full text over the description of a solution.
Some common share or repository for the binaries and / or code. Oftentimes a large org has different authentication/authorization methods for many different environments and it might not be practical (or possible logistically) to share a single soure repository - don't get hung up on that aspect - just try to get it to the point that there is a well known share/directory/repository that works for your org.
Always make sure there is someone listed as a contact - no one ever takes code and runs it in production without at lest talking to the previous owner of it - and if you don't have a person they can start asking questions of right away then they might just go ahead and hit file->new.
Unsuccessful attributes I've seen?
N submissions per engineer per time period = lots of crap starts making it's way in
No method of rating / feedback. If there is no means to favorite/rate/give some indicator that allows the cream to rise to the top you don't go back to search it often because you weren't able to benefit from everyone else's slogging through the code that wasn't really very good.
Lack of feedback/email link that contacts the author with questions directly into their email.
lack of ability to categorize organically. Every time there is some super rigid hierarchy or category list that was predetermined everything ends up in "other". If you use tags or similar you can avoid it.
Requirement of some design document to accompany it that is of a rigid format the code isn't accepted - no one can ever agree on the "centralized" format of a design doc and no one ever submits when this is required.
Just my thinking.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing a small app for my friend's business, and thought I'd take the opportunity to brush up on some Agile Project Management training I did at the start of the year.
I (and I think, my current organisation!) have always struggled with gathering requirements in the form of User Stories, which take the form:
As a [User Type] I want [feature] so that [some benefit]
I'm always tempted to miss out the beginning and end, and just leave the feature - but this then just becomes requirements gathering the old way!
But I don't want to just make it fit, so that I can say 'I'm doing Agile'.... for example, if I know that the user is to be presented with a list of items, then the reason is self-evident, is it not?
e.g.
As a [Store Manager] I want [to see a list of Stock Items] so that ... ?
Is it normal practice to leave out the [so that] clause?
We used to miss it out as well. And by leaving it out we missed a lot.
To understand the feature properly and not just do the thing right but DO THE RIGHT THING it is key to know WHY the feature, and for that the next key is WHO (the role)
In DDD terms, stakeholder. Stakeholders can be different, everyone who cares. From programmers and db admins to all the types of users.
So, first understand, who is the stakeholder, then you know 50% of WHY he cares, then the benefit, and then it is already almost obviously WHAT to implement.
Try to not just write "as a user". Specify. "as store manager", or even "as the lead of the shift responsible for closing the day", i need....so that....
Maybe you can implement something different which will give the same stakeholder even better benefit!!!
Try, To Achieve [Business Value] As [User] I need [Feature].
The goal is to focus on the value the feature delivers. It helps you think in vertical slices, which reduces pure "technical tasks" that aren't visible. It's not an easy transition, but when you start thinking vertically you start really being able to reduce the waste in your process.
Another way is to thinking of the acceptance tests that your customer could write to ensure the feature would work. It's a short jump to then using something like FitNesse to automated those tests.
No, it's actually not obvious - there are a lot of reasons to want to see a list, a lot of things you might want to with it - scan it for some info, get an overview, print it, copy and paste it into a word document etc. And what exactly it is will give you valuable hints on reasonable implementation details - formatting of the list, exact content; or even a hint that a different feature might be a better idea to satisfy that need. Don't be surprised to find out that the reason actually is "so that I can count the number of entries"...
Of course, this might in fact not apply to you. My actual point in fact is that there are reasons that people came up with this template - and there are also reasons that a lot of experienced people don't actually use it. And when you are new to the practice, you are not in a good position to assess all the pros and cons of following a practice, so I'd highly recommend to simply try to follow it closely for some time. You might be surprised by the usefulness of it - or not, in which case you still learned something and can drop it with a clear concise... :)
User Stories is another way of saying you need to interview your users to find out what they want and what problems they are trying to solve. That the heart of having this in agile development. If the form is not working for your then take a step back and try a different approach that feels more natural to you or better suited to your capabilities as a writer.
In short don't feel like you have to be in a straight jacket. The important thing is that you follow the spirit of the methodology.
In this specific case you want to get a list of what problems the user has, why they are problems, and what they think will help them.
I think you should really try to get a reason defined, even if it may seem obvious. If you can't come up with a reason then why build the feature in the first place? Also the reason may point out other deficiencies in the design that could trigger improvements in other areas.
I often categorize my stories by the user/persona that it primarily relates to, thus I don't put the user's identity in the story title. My stories also are bigger than some agile methodologies suggest. Usually, I start with a title. I use it for planning purposes. Once I get close to actually working on that story, I flesh it out with some details -- basic idea, constraints, assumptions, related stories -- so that I capture more of the information that I know about it. I also keep my stories in a wiki, not on note cards. I understand the trade-off -- i.e., I may spend too much time on details before I need them, but I am able to capture and share it with, typically, off-site customers easily.
The bottom line for me is that Agile is a philosophy, rather than a specification. There are particular implementations that may (strongly) suggest that you do things a certain way and may be non-negotiable on some items. For example, it's hard to say you're doing XP if you don't pair program. In general, though, I would say that most agilists would say that you ought to do those things that work for you, in the way that they work for you -- as long as they are consistent with the general principles, you can still call yourself agile. The general principles would include things like release early/release often, unit testing, short iterations, acknowledge that change will happen, delay detailed planning until you are ready to implement, ...
Bottom line for me: if the stories work for you without the user and rationale -- as long as you understand who the user is and why they want something -- do it however you want. Just don't require a complete specification before you start implementing.