From: Richard Knapp (gyp_caver_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 12:35:02 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id MAA13266 for cavexml-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:38:28 +0100 Received: from smtp5.mail.yahoo.com (smtp5.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.69.102]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with SMTP id MAA13262 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:38:26 +0100 Message-Id: <200101311138.MAA13262@karto.ethz.ch> Received: from slip166-72-184-254.nc.us.prserv.net (HELO Muphin) (166.72.184.254) by smtp.mail.vip.suc.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 11:38:43 -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: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:35:02 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: PMMail 2.20.2030 for OS/2 Warp 4.00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Groupings Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
>"As long as you can get hold of..." yes that is exactly the problem!
>If you have a several mile system in front of you and you want to
>load up some interesting part into some bit of software trick modeling
>software being able to find some logical 'chunk' of data is a very useful
>operation.
>
>Since another thread has suggested a tag for text, we can summarize as:
>
><text name=xxxx, date=yyyy, author=zzzz language=aaaaa>
>
>let's build on that and run with another strawman construction.
>What if we just had one way to group things, with a nice set of
>attributes.
>
><ChunkOCaveData name=aaaaa, type=bbbb date=ccccc ...>
>....
></ChunkOCaveData>
Sounds good. That would open to possibility to allow surveys to be nested as is done with
Survex. It would also allow sections of the cave to be grouped (type="area"
name="Entrance Series") or caves themselves to be grouped (type="system"
name="OFD-Wookeys" ;)
>In other words, prove to me some set of tags are actually semantically
>important otherwise and until then I'll keep thinking of just one hierarchy with
>arbitrary names and types. For example, someones example <subsurvey> tag seems
>like a tag that could easily be done with something more generic.
I guess at that point it would depend on the type defined in the Schema. If the type
requires certain data like a survey would - date, declination, personnel, positions, etc -
would the constraints be relaxed when items are nested? Or would there be a special
subtype of "Grouping" that must have more data?
In the Survey/SubSurvey instance, a survey was only a name (letter) with a description.
The SubSurvey had all the other stuff.
>The above scheme would allow anyone to group anything they wanted:
>survey, cave, system, room, underwater shots, surface survey, historic
>survey. Literally you name, I don't care? Do I?
I guess that depends on if the format needs to enforce any standards on surveying
(required data).
>I'd bet that there were important groupings which don't fit this scheme,
>but I'd like to start from this 'typed and name group' idea and then...
_________________________________________________________
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 - 00:03:54 CET