From: Paul & Eleanor (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Sat Feb 10 2001 - 22:25:12 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id WAA16067 for cavexml-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:20:56 +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 WAA16063 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:20:55 +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 14RhSe-0001Gp-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:21:40 -0700 Message-ID: <3A85B1B8.ED31B19B@xmission.com> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:25:12 -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> <3A824ABC.1ED5C22B_at_xmission.com> <3A82EAFE.10900_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil> 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
Ralph Hartley wrote:
> Don't use the word "type" for the name of a field. Too many things have
> types. How about "modality"?
But a particular tag has a particular context, and thus type in this
context has a particular semantic interpretation.
Modality? Does it add value? Seems a bit pretenious to me. But I
agree, type is a bit generic.
> Also, "measurement" is not the right name, because it gives information
> about many measurements; it is not itself a measurement. I would use a
> "measurement" element for a single measurement.
Okay <measurements>. At this stage, it is the structure I'm discussing,
not particular spellings. I wouldn't even mind if all of tags
were spelled with Spanish names (lots of Cave in Spain, Mexico, Latin
America, people in Italy, Portugal, Brazil would probably recognize most
words etc, but I bet I couldn't get a wooden nickle for this idea :-)
I would find using "measurement" at the particular survey value level
a huge redundancy, because a particular measurement
is a distance, a azimuth, depth or something else that should be named
explicity as such (or contained in an element so named).
> <property modality="left" resolution="1" units="feet" at="from" facing="to">
Yeah I was compressing LRCF into one measurement classification, I
didn't
think this was too complex an idea. And No I would NOT define an
elaborate set of attribute like you've done, but I could see them as
possiblilities for someone else (with the ability to default them
as you are discussing).
> <group level="shot"> <!-- A shot is just one way to group data, some programs care, some may not --!>
Oh I thought, others were already talking about this as the
fundamental piece of data, my <measurement> tag was to effect the values
in a shot. I see you have just decided to use a group tag. But what
is this with level? In hierarchical markup, a third level nested <group>
is obviously at some "level", saying the following section is at "level=
"shot" makes it sound like certain tags might apply. You might as
us <shot> thus you can have the XML enforce whatever rules you are
thinking
here. (Note my group tag was a total optional thing).
Maybe we all need to read something like:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5957/10minxml.html
> My version would be:
> <property modality="distance" units="meters" reader="Paul Hill">
I know XML tends to be wordy but "property modality" on every
measurement
I just don't see that selling very well.
> it isn't really right to assume that resolution is in the same units as the > measurement itself.
Why not? that seems like a very reasonable assumption to me. Who is
going
to speak of reading meters to the nearest half foot? Wow, I know I can
get confused on units, but that is just asking for trouble isn't it?
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:00 CET