We provide for all our metric dimension values a standard error. Let's say I have the concept tree volume which is estimated from a sample for different regions. So, for each volume value I have a corresponding standard error. Would you consider then the tree volume as a dimension of size 2 ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "json-stat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to json-stat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/json-stat/74567a06-e706-4a8b-8926-ff2a7584762f%40googlegroups.com.
Yes, you should use the metric dimension to handle standard errors because it's the the same cube (same non-metric dimensions), only what you measure changes. The goal of the metric dimension is to be able to express in a single cube data in absolute values, as a ratio, as a variation, or even as sampling errors.X.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:56 AM Simon Speich <simon...@gmail.com> wrote:
We provide for all our metric dimension values a standard error. Let's say I have the concept tree volume which is estimated from a sample for different regions. So, for each volume value I have a corresponding standard error. Would you consider then the tree volume as a dimension of size 2 ?--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "json-stat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to json...@googlegroups.com.