From: Paul & Eleanor (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Sat Feb 10 2001 - 21:49:13 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id VAA15906 for cavexml-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:44:56 +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 VAA15902 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:44:55 +0100 Received: from slc701.modem.xmission.com ([166.70.7.193] helo=xmission.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 14Rgto-00080O-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:45:41 -0700 Message-ID: <3A85A949.1DCBD783@xmission.com> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:49:13 -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: Finding groupings References: <200102081326.OAA29149_at_karto.ethz.ch> 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
Richard Knapp wrote:
> As Garry and Devin stated, the data is not the same as the view. We _can_ integrate > the data with
> the view but it is imposing an artificial structure on the data. The data is just that. The way we want
> to see the data is our view of it.
That is what they are claiming. I don't see that at all.
Your question at the end maybe finally gets to the difference.
Surveyors and cavers give names to chunks of survey, be they
caves, rooms, levels, areas, sections, etc. Views to me is: I have some
application that really wants one of those, only one of those no others.
I personnally could NOT care what people call things, or if they have
halls or rooms or years or historic surveys or whatever, but I would
want to allow them to call some chunk something.
So you say to organize things as a tree. How were you planning on doing
that without some grouping? Are you assuming there is some other
grouping available? I am not. I was assuming, that this tag is exactly
that the regular group. One tag, it groups, that is all, nothing else,
other tags are interesting for marking data, but they serve a different
purpose.
> >Note also that specifying a path to a part of the data in
> >order to provide a view is something I see as outside of caveXML.
>
> If you took the data from your system to another, would you want that
> view to go along? If so,
> would it be better to have two separate files or one file?
two files or one file, both in CaveXML (possibly with extensions).
No, I don't have any "views", because I am only trying to get data
into the format, I don't care if you throw that data away, save it,
or allow selection of processing using of it. The point is there are
these groupings in the original data, but I need only one mark
(until convienced otherwise) to provide named (and possibly typed)
groups.
A view going along? If by views you mean, maybe all <notes type="lead">
or all shots with names begining with "A-" or an intersting section
of cave that made a great 3-D representation, I don't think I care
to send those to someone else. They can find there own views they
like, assuming their software supports such concepts.
> >(1) so that someone can ask for some interesting operation of their
> >software (like reading it into whatever the native format is),
> >to be performed on only a subset of an caveXML file.
>
> Agreed. But the software really doesn't care unless we tell it to.
> So that too is no more than our
> view on the data.
I don't see how I can build a view unless you have some reasonable
way to refer to reasonable chunks of data. Thus I see that <group>
is suggested by your discussion of treeing the data, and the idea
that someone will "tell it" (as you state above) to form a view.
> >(2) so that the names given to the parts of the cave can be
> >recorded in the data (even if no one has any means of using
> >those names).
>
> Are the names part of the survey data or how we look at the survey data?
Did you not read my posting? I was talking about rooms and pits and
sections, and ... It is all part of the survey data! Rooms names,
passage names, area names, are things known by the folks who work
the cave. How you separate out, some subset of data to form a data
view is the choice of someone _consuming_ the data, hopefully the
user of the data can use these groupings to form such 'views'.
My suggestion of grouping is a choice made by someone _producing_
the data to represent part of the data as collected by the cavers,
not as decided is important or not imporant by the sofftware or
software user. I am trying to preserve a piece of data from
the problem domain, not invent something for any particular
method of processing.
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:00 CET