From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 08:56:29 CEST
Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch> Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 7BAD115933 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:33:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 708DB1591A; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:33:16 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id B86C615945 for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 8680E15919; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:33:04 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 26FD51594D for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:33:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay1.melbpc.org.au (newglider.melbpc.org.au [203.12.152.9]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 151F415918 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:32:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.melbpc.org.au (localhost.melbpc.org.au [127.0.0.1]) by relay1.melbpc.org.au (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6JAGCft042051 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:16:12 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from matthews_at_melbpc.org.au) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:56:29 +1000 From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20020718233730.A42188A78_at_karmail.ethz.ch> Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020719164146.01d931c0@popa.melbpc.org.au> Received: from relay1.melbpc.org.au (localhost.melbpc.org.au [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.melbpc.org.au (AvMailGate-2.0.0.6) id 42015-408C9542; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:15:47 +1000 Received: from peter.melbpc.org.au (a2-32.melbpc.org.au [203.12.157.32]) by relay1.melbpc.org.au (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6JAFZSC041996 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:15:45 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from matthews_at_melbpc.org.au) References: <003b01c22e56$c6380360$c7ab07c3_at_argussoft.ru> Subject: Re: Data model : branches and nodes.... and more To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 X-Sender: matthews_at_popa.melbpc.org.au X-Loop: cavexml Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
At 19:03 18-07-02 -0400, Richard Knapp wrote:
> > I think that separation nodes and branches as special classes of legs and
> > stations is nothing but data duplication. I don't see any clear reason
> to ....
>
>Agreed.
>
>IMHO, it might be easier to start with a simpler data model and work
>to something more complex than trying to analyse and dissect the
>current one. For instance, we know this is about - but not limited to
>- Caves and Surveys. In our instance, Caves are a convenient grouping
>for survey information. In other uses, it might be Plot or Property
>or ? (John, help me out here. You're the land surveyor). But if that
>was taken too far, it may have to change from CaveXML to ?
>
>However, there is an interesting option. There could be multiple
>DTDs/Schemas implemented by CaveXML. One could represent survey data,
>one for plotting data (maps), and others as needed. If we split the
>overall into those smaller chunks, it might be easier to handle. It
>also might be possible to assign bits to other people so Peter isn't
>trying to coordinate all of this.
Agreed. This is exactly what has been proposed in the Suggested Plan on the
Task 6.1 Progress web page. As a first cut, and as has been noted in our
Issues web page for some time, we expect separate data models for Cave
Survey, Topology, and Map. I have recently asked Andreas Neumann and Martin
Heller, who proposed the need for topology and map data models, whether
they would be prepared to start preparing drafts of those models so that we
could move on to them without delay after we finish the Cave Survey data
model. They have not yet replied/accepted, but I suggest that if you are
particularly interested in those aspects, that you contact Andreas and
Martin directly so that our main work can remain focussed on the Cave
Survey data model for now.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 31 2002 - 23:00:01 CEST