From: Paul & Eleanor (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 08:29:00 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id IAA24537 for cavexml-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:24:54 +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 IAA24533 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:24:53 +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 14QlSN-0008Rq-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:25:31 -0700 Message-ID: <3A824ABC.1ED5C22B@xmission.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:29:00 -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: defaulting units for measurements References: <3A6DD46C.5C6B291E_at_earthlink.net> <3A6EA342.628CEB2D_at_speleonics.com.au> <3A723FA2.F1D861DC_at_xmission.com> <3A74F69C.1010105_at_earthlink.net> 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
Devin Kouts wrote:
>
> Touche Paul... I think you nailed it squarely.
I guess you like the part about the need for defaults and
measurements for a set of shots.
> Devin Kouts wrote:
> > Instruments - the collection of instruments used to conduct the
> > survey
> > Compass - data about a compass used on the survey
> > Clinometer - data about a clinometer used on the survey
> > Tape - data about a tape used on the survey
> > Accuracy - assessed accuracy of a given instrument or reading
> > Correction - correction applied to an instrument or reading
> > Serial Number - serial number of an item, e.g. cave or compass
> > Owner - owner of an item, e.g. cave or compass
The above define attributes that apply to instruments, some of
which might effect the interpretation of a set of measurements.
The discussion has already toyed with the idea of units and defaults,
and already butted up against the problem of how different groups might
define a survey. This posting presents a first cut of a way to handle
the idea of instruments appling to shots without introducing the idea
of a 'survey'.
It solves the problem with one nesting element; the <measurement>.
I have to admit that I was worried about defining a <survey> with
some type of header section that defined intruments, for example
<!-- the following is way to complex for me --!>
<survey ... >
<instruments>
<clinometer ... \>
<compass ... \>
<tape ... \>
</instruments>
<!-- shot data goes here --!>
</survey>
I didn't like the idea that an element one level inside another element
applies to another element outside, i.e. survey:instruement:clinomete
effects survey:shot.
To give proper credit John Halleck pointed out
the way out of having such a complex structure.
we just go back to a simple nesting. Something like:
<measurement type="inclination"
manufacturer ="Suuntos" owner="Paul Hill" manufacturer="..."
resolution=0.25 units="degrees">
<!-- resolution (to what measurement the device was read)
and units are the useful bits for numerical processing
the rest is for historical, searching and
data selection purposes only>
<measurement type="distance" instrument="Fiberglass Tape" ...
resolution=0.25 units="Decimal Feet">
<measurement type="azimuth" resolution="0.5" units="degrees">
<!-- I'm running with the format suggested by Richard Knapp --!>
<shot>
<from value="1"/>
<to value="2"/>
<azimuth value="22.5"/>
<distance value="3.3"/>
<inclination value="-45"/>
</shot>
<!--
so now what can I do if someone reads the wrong side of the
clinometer
--!>
<shot>
<from value="2"/>
<to value="3"/>
<azimuth value="22.5"/>
<distance value="3.3"/>
<inclination value="-100" units="Percent grade">
<note type"survey blunder">
What an idiot! Paul obviouly read the wrong scale on the
instrument!
</note>
</inclination>
</shot>
...
</measurement>
</measurement>
</measurement>
Note: the type tag of a measurement would be defined to allow exactly
the
set of first level elements that appear inside of a <shot> element
with the possible exception of cross section information.
See comment below grouping cross-section information into one
measurement
type.
This technique allows you to, if you need to.
1. override individual units per measurement for just that measurement.
2. Change to a different instrument even within the same 'survey'.
3. Mix different instruments (but I haven't addressed that interesting
problem of joining air filled passage surveys to underwater surveys).
4. It leaves open the door for extensions, for example a measurement
tag for laser range finder measured cross-section (to reuse the
extension example already mentioned in another thread).
5. It doesn't require list of units on every shot.
But doesn't require any more bits on a shot than the minimum
required to convey the data.
With this scheme I notice that now the concept of survey does become
something of non-struture, there is only the concept of sets of shot
taken with the same measurement equipment, personel etc.
So maybe this IS a case where the obvious grouping of
<survey> does become imaginary (even if I just posted something
that denied the existance of imaginary groupings :-).
A measurement type tag would allow all of the same tags as a shot
(easy to do in DTD, I assume in a schema also).
What happens if <measurement type="inclination" ...> is nested in
another <meaurement type="inclination">?
I'd assume the inner one always takes precedence, thus allowing an
alternative way to override not just one shot, but smaller group
of shots.
By the way, for LRCF you could have.
<measurement type="LRCF" resolution=0.25 units=meters>
<!-- the cross sections were estimated to the nearest 0.25 meters --!>
If we use this method, someone would have to work out what is the
right interpretation of:
<measurement type="distance" instrument="Fiberglass Tape"
owner="John Halleck" reader="John Halleck"
resolution=0.25 units="Decimal US Surveyor Feet">
<!-- here comes the idiot Paul misreading the wrong scale again! --!>
<measurement type="distance" units="meters" reader="Paul Hill">
...
<!-- so are the measurement here still with a John's Fiberglass
Tape read to
the nearest 0.25 feet, or is this second measurement tag an error
because it
is incomplete --!>
...
</measurement>
...
</measurment>
Have fun,
-Paul
p.s. <group> and <measurement> can be made (using standard XML notation)
to nest arbitrarily within each other.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:00 CET