1

I am having the following construction.

In regularization of outer-boundaries, outer-boundary line segments fitted from irregularly distributed contour points as described by Horde and Susan (2012) are rectified by rotating their mid-points until orthogonality or parallelism is met with respect to the identified direction.

But, I have been advised to break them in to simple sentences.

Now, my question is what would be the most beautiful way to represent whole idea by few simple sentences.

Here is my try. But I feel my way is not the best way and looking for some advanced way.

In regularization of outer-boundaries, boundary line segments can be first fitted from irregularly distributed contour points as described by Horde and Susan (2012).

The fitted line segments can then be rectified by rotating their mid-points until orthogonality or parallelism is met with respect to the identified direction.

  • Have in this sense is stative and can't appear on the progressive construction *am having. – snailcar Jan 15 '14 at 13:33
2

Your sentences look fine to me. One possible way to make the reading smoother is to move the reference to the front or the back. For example,

As described by Horde and Susan (2012), in regularization of outer-boundaries, boundary line segments can be first fitted from irregularly distributed contour points, and then rectified by rotating their mid-points until orthogonality or parallelism is met with respect to the identified direction.

Here is another alternative,

As described by Horde and Susan (2012), in regularization of outer-boundaries, boundary line segments can be first fitted from irregularly distributed contour points. They can then be rectified by rotating their mid-points until orthogonality or parallelism is met with respect to the identified direction.

  • i like your second option. I think I should avoid can be as in my original sentence it is not there. So, If I use is/are (what is the good verb for these two) instead of can be, do you think the meaning or readability is deviate? So, If I say: As described by Horde and Susan (2012), in regularization of outer-boundaries, boundary line segments are first fitted from irregularly distributed contour points. They are then rectified by rotating their mid-points until orthogonality or parallelism **are ** met with respect to the identified direction. – gnp Jan 14 '14 at 14:18
  • You can. I believe you can do that in the other alternative (the first one) too. – Damkerng T. Jan 14 '14 at 14:22
  • my wordprocessor gave me ... orthogonality or parallelism are met with.... instead of is.. Do you think ARE is correct? – gnp Jan 14 '14 at 14:23
  • 1
    I meant are fitted and are then rectified. As for the verb met, it should be until orthogonality or parallelism is met. We have two abstract uncountable nouns orthogonality and parallelism, linked with or, so is is the correct usage. – Damkerng T. Jan 14 '14 at 14:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.