From: Ralph Hartley (hartley_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 22:12:51 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id WAA32658 for cavexml-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:09:07 +0100 Received: from sun0.aic.nrl.navy.mil (sun0.aic.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.84.10]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id WAA32654 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:09:06 +0100 Received: from aic.nrl.navy.mil (pc31.aic.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.84.181]) by sun0.aic.nrl.navy.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20135 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:09:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A830BD3.8090703@aic.nrl.navy.mil> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:12:51 -0500 From: Ralph Hartley <hartley_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010124 X-Accept-Language: en To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Subject: Re: Groupings References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102081100400.971-100000_at_r-schuster.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Roger Schuster wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 martinl_at_talk21.com wrot
>
>
>> e) While there has been a lot of discussion devoted to asserting that
>> interchanged data should be as nearly as possible unprocessed, I see no
>> reason why processed data should not be interchanged as well.
>
>
> I think processed data shouldn't interchanged because each software
> processes data in its own way. You could take the same surveying data from a
> looped cave and enter them into CaveRender, Compass and Survex and print the
> map in exactly the same scale. Each of the three maps will look a little bit
> different because of different loop closure technique.
Yes, they would all be different. But without a standard format they all
have the SAME usefulness - very little.
I would argue that a standard format for the results of processing would
be MORE useful than a standard for the raw data.
But it would be very useful if processed data COULD be included. We
already need a way to specify the coordinates of a station, so all we
need is a way to mark the information as the product of (not the input
to) processing.
How about:
<processed program="snafuloop" version="3.4.3" date="2015-4-25"
closed="false">
<proprietarydata program="snafuloop" format="foobar"
data="@*$#$(#)$#&*4432nd7**"/> <!-- BAD program! NO upgrade! --!>
<location station=<sation name="s0"/> northing="0" easting="0"
elevation="0"/>
<location station=<station name="s1"/> northing="10.8"
easting="24.34" elevation="0.5"/>
<location station=<station name="s2"/> northing="10.6"
easting="25.76" elevation="-1"/>
<location station=<station name="s0" image="2"/> northing="0.74"
easting="0.7" elevation="0.3"/>
<shot from=<station name="s0"> to=<station name="s1"> />
<shot from=<station name="s1"> to=<station name="s2"> />
<shot from=<station name="s2"> to=<station name="s0" image="2"> />
</processed>
It would be seriously frowned opon for any program (other than an
editor) to change a file except by adding processed elements.
As the author of a program that takes processed data as input, I need a
standard format as much as (or more than) anyone else.
Unlike the input format, I would accept an output format that only
standardize the least common denominator. There is a common set of data
that all loop closing programs produce. It would be very useful not to
have to write new code for each producer-consumer pair, for things that
are really the same in substance for each.
Ralph Hartley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:00 CET