From: Lev Bishop (lev.bishop_at_yale.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 02:16:31 CET
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 7105115A9A for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:32:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 2803915A92; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:32:11 +0100 (CET) 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 CBA0815A9A for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:32:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 8A30A14AAB; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:32:06 +0100 (CET) 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 29A3A15A9A for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:32:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from pantheon-po01.its.yale.edu (pantheon-po01.its.yale.edu [130.132.50.18]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 317A67DBC for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:32:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from ares.its.yale.edu (ares.its.yale.edu [130.132.52.16]) by pantheon-po01.its.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBI1GUS02330 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (lsb32_at_localhost) by ares.its.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBI1GVk19165 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:16:32 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ares.its.yale.edu: lsb32 owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: Lev Bishop <lev.bishop_at_yale.edu> To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Subject: Re: Raw & Field Data In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20021207051540.01d4f1e0_at_popa.melbpc.org.au> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212171946530.15318-100000@ares.its.yale.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.0c (attachment(s) not renamed) 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
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Peter MATTHEWS wrote:
> Raw data:
> An initial unaltered digital copy of some or all of the survey Field Data,
> now ready for processing.
I'm not entirely sure about "now ready for processing". If the original
data had errors in it that make it impossible to process in its original
form then I think still you want to be able to enter it as raw data. It
should only be at the edited data stage (if at all...) where requirements
like "angles have to be between 0 and 360 degrees", "stations have to have
unique identifiers", needing to have values for all of the instruments for
each leg (eg. if you forgot to record the horizontal angle on a
near-vertical leg and will need to fudge it). On the other hand the format
of the raw data should either be the same as the edited data so that if it
meets all the requirements it can then be processed, or it should be such
that if those requirements are satisfied then it can be automatically
processed into edited data. Maybe "now ready for processing" should be
changed to "in a format suitable for processing, but with no/minimal data
verification or consistancy checking"?
...
> 4. If such a program unilaterally alters the data as it is being entered,
> then the data has become Edited Data because its values differ from the
> Field Data, i.e. a Raw Data version has effectively been skipped.
Add: "This applies even if a number entered as 1.0 becomes 1.00, where the
numerical value of the data hasn't changed but it is still different from
what was entered". Controversial? I'm thinking in terms of a number
recorded as 125 degrees - or was it 12.5 degrees? - maybe the book person
wasn't careful to make decimal points obvious. Sketch and the loop
closures suggest 12.5 would be more consistent so we go back to the raw
data and look and see whether it was recorded as 125 or 125.0 to decide on
this (assuming the field data isn't available any more for whatever
reason).
Other than the above comments, sounds good to me,
Lev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 17:00:00 CET