From: John Halleck (John.Halleck_at_utah.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 23 2001 - 16:17:22 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id QAA31112 for cavexml-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:17:22 +0100 Received: from cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (nahaj_at_cor.oz.cc.utah.edu [155.99.2.2]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id QAA31108 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:17:21 +0100 Received: from localhost (nahaj_at_localhost) by cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA16479 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:17:22 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:17:22 -0700 (MST) From: John Halleck <John.Halleck_at_utah.edu> To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Subject: Re: Stations are primary In-Reply-To: <3A9671FD.8070506_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10102230813010.16208-100000@cor.oz.cc.utah.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Ralph Hartley wrote:
> [...]
> > That is one of the things that having a unique station number can
> > be used for. (And having the input program handle equivalences
> > by making the numbers the same means that later programs don't
> > have to care.)
>
> That's why I think unique names are essential. Making those names be
> numbers is ok, but doesn't buy as much. Also, ID attributes are
> required to be unique by to be valid xml, so existing tools should check
> them.
What unique numbers (in a range without gaps) buys you is the
ability to update and combine cleanly and effeciently.
> An "Equivalence" element is still needed because there has to be a
> nondestructive way to say that two stations are the same. By
> nondestructive I mean that there needs to be an easy way to back out the
> identification if it turns out to be wrong. I assume that ordinary data
> entry tools would use the unique names to identify stations, reserving
> the Equivalent element for use when the identification is uncertain, or
> possibly when the stations are in other files (which cannot be assumed
> to respect our unique names).
You make a good point. I have to agree.
> [...]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:01 CET