From: Garry Petrie (gp_at_europa.com)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 21:53:08 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id WAA01458 for cavexml-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:03:03 +0100 Received: from io.europa.com (IDENT:root_at_io.europa.com [216.65.131.2]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id WAA01454 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:03:01 +0100 Received: from europa.com (ip85.gte15.rb1.bel.nwlink.com [209.20.244.85]) by io.europa.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1DL2xE04640 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:03:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3A899EB4.1090509@europa.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:53:08 -0800 From: Garry Petrie <gp_at_europa.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0 X-Accept-Language: en,pdf To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Subject: Re: Spanning trees (again) References: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10102131128030.21309-100000_at_cor.oz.cc.utah.edu> 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
John Halleck wrote:
> Ralph Hartley, in private off list mail, has made a good case for
> justifying having more than one kind of spanning tree around.
>
> Although I feel (and believe that Ralph feels) that having spanning
> trees around is useful.
So a CaveXML file could have multiple spanning trees, which I probably would ignore, but I
would have to faithfully maintain as meta data when I use the file. There is a problem
with including calculated information from the base elements that has limited appeal, are
end users forced to propagate the results as meta data? If not, how do you decide which
elements to discard for which your software does not recognize? Do you give the end user
the option to filter out elements of CaveXML?
Garry Petrie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:01 CET