From: Richard Knapp (gyp_caver_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 03:47:05 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id LAA07442 for cavexml-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:27:21 +0100 Received: from smtp4.mail.yahoo.com (smtp4.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.69.101]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with SMTP id LAA07438 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:27:20 +0100 Message-Id: <200101241027.LAA07438@karto.ethz.ch> Received: from slip166-72-184-92.nc.us.prserv.net (HELO Muphin) (166.72.184.92) by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 10:27:17 -0000 X-Apparently-From: <gyp?caver_at_yahoo.com> From: "Richard Knapp" <gyp_caver_at_yahoo.com> To: "cavexml_at_cartography.ch" <cavexml_at_cartography.ch> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:47:05 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: PMMail 2.20.2030 for OS/2 Warp 4.00 In-Reply-To: <057601c085a1$46e9f320$0a3c10ac_at_gordon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Splitting SHOT into constituent members Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
>So what's the advantage? Well, now we are in a better position to
>define the properties of what could happen. A single measurement
>is an instantaneous event, and we can concern ourselves with defining
>all the properties about it (who did it, with what gadget, and
>what did it say)
True to an extent. However, sometimes, events are grouped into a coherent structure. In my
instance, I am less concerned about a single shot oddities (Tim read the compass on this shot
but Bob on the rest) than I am about getting the jist of the survey represented. ie The compass
was read by Tim and Bob.
I guess you could ask is a shot complete by _just_ having a tape measurement? An azimuth? An
inclination? As long as we continue to use a compass, inclinometer/depth guage, and tape to
survey caves, I think they _must_ be appropriately grouped.
>Without that restriction we can present the measurements in
>chronological order and more easily extract data from one
>particular instrument, say.
I have not had enough luck keeping stations in the same place long enough to be assured I am
actually measure from/to the same place. If something more permanent was used -- like in a
precision survey using nails or pins -- then I would agree. However, even Grade 5 isn't to those
standards.
>Now, I believe that the computer can sort through all the data pertaining
>the relative locations of stations "A" and "B" and work all this out
>for itself. Sure, the shot record will supposedly stop you from...
>[snip]
>nothing currently stops us from making unconnected legs,
>but we don't do it.
Again, an interesting point. However, at some point the data will need to be correct... unless the
concensus is that invalid data can be stored as valid in the structure. True, there are times when
surveys are left hanging. However, I don't think a restriction should be imposed by the standard
to not allow that. There are valid cases for this occuring (surveys not totally completed). Is the
data valid? Yes. Is it complete? No. Not really a problem though.
>Likewise, we wouldn't forget to take
>a tape measurement just because there is no shot structure
>which requires it.
I guess that depends on how good the person keeping book watches what occurs. I have seen
'completed' surveys with fore/backsights not even close to agreeing. However, the book person
didn't seem to catch it.
>Yes, a perfectly good survey can be made without a clino if
>you have a depthgauge. Maybe in air we can back-up our
>survey with altimeter readings on some of the survey stations.
You are jesting, aren't you?
>As I think I have said before, I consider the survey notes
>that we bring out of the cave with us are simply that: shorthand..
You have an interesting point about the grouping, especially in the book, being human oriented. I
don't know if breaking that grouping would help or hinder.
>I claim that the <shot> structure has no place in such a format
>because it is not general, not necessary and can force measurements
>(such as depthgauge measurements) into places they don't naturally belong.
To me, without the implied structure given by having shots, the data becomes unstructured. What
would be the advantage with using XML if there is no structure to the data?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 00:03:52 CET