From: Roger Schuster (roger_at_r-schuster.de)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 10:42:52 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id KAA27438 for cavexml-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:42:15 +0100 Received: from mail.arcor-ip.de (mail-ffm-p.arcor-ip.de [145.253.2.10]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id KAA27432 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:42:14 +0100 Received: from r-schuster.de (213.23.28.33) by mail.arcor-ip.de; 8 Feb 2001 10:42:25 +0100 Received: from localhost (roger_at_localhost) by r-schuster.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f189gqD00828 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:42:52 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:42:52 +0100 (CET) From: Roger Schuster <roger_at_r-schuster.de> To: <cavexml_at_cartography.ch> Subject: RE: Groupings In-Reply-To: <3A81BF55.B4CBA3F6_at_earthlink.net> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102081015500.817-100000@r-schuster.de> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 devinkouts_at_earthlink.net wrote:
Hello again,
> Those remarks are all right on the money. If an application doesn't
> understand what it is receiving then it must modify what it receives
> into something in can understand.
Sounds reasonable. But there are always things a certain piece of software
doesn't understand. For example, we discussed on this list how to record and
save freely placeable and oriented cross sections but - which actual
software can use this? Julian Todds "Tunnel" can, Toporobot, too. Compass on
the other hand can only handle cross sections (LRUD) at the location of the
stations and oriented rectangular to the shot line. What will happen if
Julian and Larry will work together in large surveying project? Julian will
pass his data with lots of cross sections to Larry and Larry reads the whole
stuff into Compass and makes his modifications to the imported data. If he
never must return the data to Julian or pass them to third party cavers it
is easy. He can simply skip the not used information. But if a software can
read CaveXML it also must write it without any loss of information. In the
example from above this means that Larry must expand his native file format
in a way that it can keep the additional info even if the software doesn't
work with it.
Probably it's easier to change over to CaveXML as native file format. :-)
> >I think it is rather stupid putting anything into the same survey but
> >any caving software I tested so far does support this already.
>
> This gave me a giggle Roger
O.k., laughing is good for your wellness! :-)
> because this model is exactly what you said you do when you wrote "If I
> record new data in a passage which is already partially surveyed I put
> them into the same survey."
A kind of misunderstanding. I thought you would put *any* data from the
whole cave into one survey. I was talking about data from one passage.
> The ability to link surveys was a clear requirement from the software
> developers I spoke to in December last year. We do in fact create
> sub-surveys, we just don't call them that.
I don't think so. Would you explain the sub-survey vs. linking matter a
little bit more detailed please?
Roger
--
Roger Schuster eMail roger_at_r-schuster.de
Cavepage http://www.karst.net
The very first "Point and Click" technology - a Smith & Wesson!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:00 CET