From: Paul & Eleanor (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 07:08:06 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id HAA24147 for cavexml-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:03:59 +0100 Received: from mail.xmission.com (mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id HAA24143 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:03:58 +0100 Received: from slc842.modem.xmission.com ([166.70.6.80] helo=xmission.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 14QkC5-0004oe-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Wed, 07 Feb 2001 23:04:37 -0700 Message-ID: <3A8237C6.F41C9BD1@xmission.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 23:08:06 -0700 From: Paul & Eleanor <goodhill_at_xmission.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Subject: Re: CaveXML>Range of Fields References: <3A704DAE.BE810444_at_earthlink.net> <002601c08787$a6b776f0$0a3c10ac_at_gordon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Julian Todd wrote:
>
> What a big jumbled list!
The idea is to identify all the atomic parts before jumping to
any conclusion about how the should be organized. I think this
is a very good idea.
> Following on from my previous ramblings, I can see a total
> of six different kinds of measurements:
While talking about the kinds of measurements is VERY useful, I feel
that to pretend that sets of numbers without structure is the only
things that cavers record in their survey books is to oversimplify
the data. To not provide a means to exchange at least some of it
seems unnecessarily simplistic to me.
> Personally, I don't think these higher level groupings are anything more
> than a figment of our imaginations, but that's my own opinion.
How is a shot any less of a figment? Sorry it is all the same to me.
> As
> long as I can get hold of all the distinct individual measurements I
> can feed them into one of those CAD Geometric Constraint solvers
> and get all the point locations out.
Now if that is the only thing ever done with survey data you'd be
in great shape. I think that without even getting into anything
but processing of shots there is more to the data. For example
there are things like the following:
-- data that represent values as it originally came from some
other source (see various comments on a <raw> tag)
-- Any data that has been had numerical looped closure run on it.
-- Any data that has been corrected for survey blunders, been
reshot or otherwise actually repeated by cave surveyors in a
project where people want to actually keep track of blunders and
not just replace a new one with an old one.
Note that this last one is not the same as repeated data because
the data format or the processing software can't think of any
better solution than to replicate existing data.
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:00 CET