From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 12:37:36 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 B43B615915 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:56:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 916E314A8C; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:55:58 +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 77B8A15915 for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:55:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 53746148D4; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:55:55 +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 1252A15915 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:55:55 +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 747248B22 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:55:51 +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 g6JAd7ft043322 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:39:07 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from matthews_at_melbpc.org.au) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:37:36 +1000 From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20020716194200.01d62820_at_popa.melbpc.org.au> Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020719165800.01d52480@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 43317-74DE69DF; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:39:02 +1000 Received: from peter.melbpc.org.au (a1-38.melbpc.org.au [203.12.158.38]) by relay1.melbpc.org.au (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6JAd0S2043314 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:39:00 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from matthews_at_melbpc.org.au) References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207080213330.14089-100000_at_ares.its.yale.edu > Subject: cavexml: The next two weeks 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
Dear All,
Well, there has certainly been a lot of questions raised recently! I hope
my responses have been able to alleviate some of the "fear, uncertainty and
doubt", as they say. ;-)
Be assured that we will be able to address all the issues in as much detail
as we like when we come to them when I take us through the diagram. As well
as fixing up the definitions and the names, I imagine that the diagram
itself will also get a few changes. As I said in the progress web page
preamble, nothing there is set yet - it is all open to discussion and
eventual decision by the group.
I am going to be away for the next two weeks, from tomorrow morning early
(Sat) and back on 5 Aug.
While I am away it would be good if the group could consider:
* the proposed "Other Definitions" at the bottom of my posting of 17-Jul
11:41, reproduced below.
* the "Suggested Plan" on the progress web page.
Is there someone willing to lead the group through these two items? If so,
please just announce that to the group and get started on it.
See you in 2 weeks,
Peter
At 11:41 17-07-02 +1000, Peter MATTHEWS wrote:
[snip]
>Coming out of the discussion, here are some suggested terms for your
>consideration for us to use when referring to the various stages of data
>which we have identified. These terms could be the values used in a
>"status" field associated with each Shot or Position.
>
>Field data Data and sketches recorded in the field.
>Raw data Field data when converted unchanged into character-based
>form, or
> downloaded from an instrument.
>Edited data Raw data which has had any kind of mistakes edited out of
>it, but no
> systematic instrument corrections applied.
>Final data The input data which is currently the accepted final version of
> unconsolidated Shot or other measured data, but has no
> systematic
> instrument corrections applied.
>Leg data The final single set of data ready for reduction
>processing. It may be
> the result of consolidation of several sets of final Shot
> data, and may
> or may not have its instrument corrections already
> applied. It may also
> be synthesised data generated from co-ordinates after loop
> adjustments.
>Reduced data The co-ordinate set resulting from leg data which has been
>reduced to
> co-ordinate form.
>Adjusted data The co-ordinate set resulting from leg data which has been
>reduced to
> co-ordinate form and includes loop adjustments.
>
>We'll now go through these suggested terms, one by one. So, starting with
>the first one, is the definition for "Field data" acceptable?
>
>(This is actually part of the 2nd item in my "Suggested Plan" on the
>current task progress web page, namely, "We sort out any tricky non-entity
>terms which we may need to use during discussions." We can go back to
>considering whether that plan is acceptable after we finish the above.)
>
>Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 31 2002 - 23:00:01 CEST