From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 22:11:14 CEST
Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch> Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 01FEB145C9 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:18:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id F2CE4145C6; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:18:12 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 4913C145C9 for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:18:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 3623C145C5; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:18:08 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 97507145C9 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay1.melbpc.org.au (newglider.melbpc.org.au [203.12.152.9]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id C6A14145B2 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:18:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.melbpc.org.au (localhost.melbpc.org.au [127.0.0.1]) by relay1.melbpc.org.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g37KBmV61407 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 06:11:48 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from matthews_at_melbpc.org.au) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 06:11:14 +1000 From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020315112842.01d4d210_at_popa.melbpc.org.au> Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020408055149.01d94140@popa.melbpc.org.au> Received: from relay1.melbpc.org.au (localhost.melbpc.org.au [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.melbpc.org.au (AvMailGate-6.13.0.1) id 61403-5B11661A; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 06:11:11 +1000 Received: from peter.melbpc.org.au (a2-85.melbpc.org.au [203.12.157.85]) by relay1.melbpc.org.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g37KB8T61400 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 06:11:09 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from matthews_at_melbpc.org.au) Subject: Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-AntiVirus: OK! AvMailGate Version 6.13.0.6 at relay1.melbpc.org.au has not found any known virus in this email. X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 X-Sender: matthews_at_popa.melbpc.org.au X-Loop: cavexml Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
Dear All,
Apart from Paul's there have been no comments re the below Task List.
Possible reasons could include:
* it's a wonderful task list but let's just get on with it!
* I don't like it much but don't want to say so - let's just get on with it!
* I'm waiting until the fun bit starts again.
* complete apathy.
* everyone's been on holidays and hasn't seen the email yet.
* everyone's too busy cave surveying.
* etc etc
But seriously, it would be helpful to know if there is general agreement or
not with the proposed list of jobs before I update the web page and we get
on with it.
So could we have an informal "show of hands" from everyone, this week, e.g.
along the lines of:
* Yes it's OK, let's go.
or
* No there are bits I don't like. Can we change xxx to yyy and add zzz.
Thanks and regards,
Peter
At 10:07 24-03-02 +1100, Peter MATTHEWS wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Sorry this email has been delayed in getting out - some things came up
>which I had to attend to.
>
>No further comments were received about the draft Task List, however I
>missed an earlier comment of Alexander's which is relevant:
>
>At 13:04 21-01-02 +0300, Alexander Nickolsky wrote:
>[snip]
>>Before being able to successfully design a standard format it seems
>>necessary to reach concensus on a common data model
>[snip]
>>The process of cave surveying has at least three stages, each of them
>>having its own data model.
>[snip]
>
>And these issues were also flagged up in the piece by Martin Heller and
>Andreas Neumann on our "Topics" web page under "Data model, Concepts" at:
>http://www.karto.ethz.ch/neumann/caving/cavexml/issues.html
>
>So we will need to allow for at least these three stages of data which are
>involved when we produce a cave map, namely, (1) the survey raw data, (2)
>the finally accepted co-ordinates of the calculated stations, sometimes
>with the walls/floor/ceiling, and (3) a digital form of the final drawn
>map. Sometimes Stage 3 will not exist of course, i.e. when the map is only
>on paper (as I understand it, the jury is still out on whether manual or
>computer aided map-drafting is easiest!). And there is also the other
>question which has been raised, namely the various sketches, including
>cross-sections, made in the cave and which form part of the raw survey
>data. Each of these stages contains a different type of data and *may*
>therefore need its own separate exchange/archiving format.
>
>Martin and Andreas' piece divides things up slightly differently to the
>above by citing stages of Survey, Model, and Views, but I am not sure at
>this stage that I totally understand what is in each (M+A can you
>elaborate a bit more than your following explanation?): "Survey includes
>the raw survey data, observations, and attributes; the Model defines
>morphological units, describes how to build their geometrical description
>and links them with attributes. Finally, the views define visual
>representations, such as perspective views, and the detailed maps and
>extended profiles as typically drawn in a CAD or illustration-package."
>
>So for your consideration here is my first simplistic attempt at revamping
>our original tasklist to take these factors into account:
>
>Tasks (Individual high-level tasks we need to do to achieve our
>Objectives.)
>===== [My comments shown in square brackets]
>
>1. Draw up the Scope and Objectives for the group. [Done]
>
>2. Establish the official WG delegate for each interested country (UIS
>voting is by
> country). [Not started]
>
>3. Catch up with the good work which has already been done in this area:
>Each existing
> worker to post a "summary" of what they have done, as well as point us
> to their
> detail, e.g. via their web page. [Done]
>
>4. Establish a website and mailinglist as a platform for discussion and
>publishing
> roadmaps, working drafts and results. [Done]
>
>5. Decide on the range of fields which we need to consider in a
>survey/mapping data transfer:
>
> 5.1 Draw up survey and mapping data model(s).
> [I have prepared an initial draft diagram and entity definitions for
> discussion.]
>
> 5.2 Fill out the fields needed in each entity of the model. [Many
> already discussed]
>
> 5.3 Define each of these fields.
>
>*. Decide how many separate transfer formats will be needed, e.g. survey
>data, co-ordinates,
> map graphics. Can/should some of these be combined into one format?
>
>*. Decide how we will handle the map graphics.
>
>6. Define the structure of each XML file required: root-element, nesting,
>elements
> and attributes, etc. [much discussion has already taken place; various
> people
> have produced possible examples]
>
>7. Produce regular working drafts for the proposed standards.
>
>8. Provide DTD and Schema of each XML file.
>
>9. Provide Documentation of the field definitions and data structure.
>
>10. Publish the Working Drafts for discussion and comments.
>
>11. Make Revisions after public comment.
>
>12. Vote by WG delegates.
>
>13. Ratification by UISIC.
>
>14. Publicise the format after acceptance.
>
>15. Produce explanatory and training material.
>
>16. List the software needed and organise it to get produced.
>
> *************************
>
>Your comments please...
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 23:00:00 CEST