@JÞB wrote:
@LiesbethvO wrote:
Hi Jay, you're right that DoX must be rigorous. I also wouldn't start driving a car without first determining the itinerary. Nevertheless, I still wouldn't buy a car that doesn't have a reverse gear, even if I never plan to drive backwards.
The problem, as I've been performing experiments for 8 years, and redesigning a measuring device based on the results, is that I cannot guarantee 100% that
1) the design of the experiments is always ideal and systematic:
8 years ago I couldn't use the insights I have today. Sometimes, unexpected results occur, and I become aware of variables in my experiments which I didn't realize were variables. In these cases, I still want to analyze the results in the most appropriate way, in order to learn.
2) the experiments are always carried out exactly according to plan. E.g., 2 weeks ago an intern used different variable names and values. After that I changed it to an indicator instead of a control, so he won't be able to do that anymore, but so this is how (bull)**bleep** happens!
I probably didn't mean that quite as harsh as it came out in text. However, this simple fact remains true "Once you identify that a property in an experiment, that property remains." Deletion of a property is rather difficult to justify. Much better to simply add an additional property duplicating the original property value and document the change. That preserves the change history and shows data integrity.
I think SCOUT TDMS Editor does implement a property delete feature, I would avoid using it. And certainly, any xlsx file is easy to edit without compromise of the source TDMS file.
My philosophy resonates with preserving data integrity and history by retaining the original data and duplicating it with the new name.
