From: Richard Knapp (richfk_at_attglobal.net)
Date: Wed Jun 26 2002 - 15:36:25 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 045AA1583F for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id D938E14AB0; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:47 +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 B74641583F for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 96E6814A1D; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:44 +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 506A21583F for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from prserv.net (out1.prserv.net [32.97.166.31]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 9D90B9A43 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:25:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Muphin (slip-12-65-32-136.mis.prserv.net[12.65.32.136]) by prserv.net (out1) with SMTP id <2002062614061120101aoc4me>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:06:11 +0000 From: "Richard Knapp" <richfk_at_attglobal.net> To: "cavexml_at_cartography.ch" <cavexml_at_cartography.ch> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:36:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: PMMail 2.20.2380 for OS/2 Warp 4.5 In-Reply-To: <003701c21ce6$6ef2b1d0$c7ab07c3_at_argussoft.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Progress report - cave survey data model Message-Id: <20020626142541.9D90B9A43@karmail.ethz.ch> 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
> Also there could be no clear 'left' or 'right' even without vertical
> dimension.
True. However, some information is infered by the method of data collection. For the most
part, passage dimensions are taken in one of three methods:
- perpendicular to next;
- perpendicular to last;
- bisecting angle/average.
Since the azimuth(s) of the surrounding shots is known, the azimuth(s) for the dimensions
can be assumed. However, there is still a problem at the last station on a survey leg.
In COMPASS, the only way to get the information in is to create a "blank" shot (A8 -> A8,
no distance, azi or incl). This is in part due to the design of the editor and in another
part, due to the inability of the data format to support such passage measurements.
One thing CRF tried to do (at least in the Guads) was to record passage dims at both the
from and to station (From looking To and To looking at From). Interesting concept but it
was rarely done; most just did From dimensions.. if at all.
> The most interesting problem (and the real one) is how to represent data :
> shots or stations. Speaking mathematically, it is a graph representation.
> stations are graph nodes, and shots are branches. The problem is
> that nobody surveys this way. So shots should be recorded.
Isn't it more a directed graph? How would surveying be different if it was done just as a
graph?
> If there are several shots from A1, how these data should be treated ?
>
> A1-A2 65 12.3 height=2.5
> A1-B1 120 5.6 height=3.5 ' Mistake ?????
When people take estimates of measurements, there is no guarantee they will agree,
especially if different people are involved.
> And there will be some stations with no place to put comments - the last
> stations in branches.
Comments and Notes should be allowed on shots and stations in the format. If not, they
the format is just asking for trouble. As to those that record the data, there's not much
a data format can do to influence how they survey. In fact, a good format will let them
survey how every they want and adapt to their method - no matter if it is good or bad.
> Another problem - what to do with backward shots ?
Depends. If Shots are separate Entities, then the shot will define the direction.
<Shot from="A1" to="A2">
.....
</Shot>
or for the data side, I had something like this:
<Shot from="A1" to="A2">
<Azimuth value="135" direction="Forward"/>
<Azimuth value="316" direction="Backward"/>
.....
</Shot>
or in the "new" proposal:
<Shot from="A1" to="A2">
<Measurement kind="Azimuth" value="135" direction="Forward"/>
<Measurement kind="Azimuth" value="316" direction="Backward"/>
.....
</Shot>
> There is a lot of data that could be measured. For example, direction of
> cracks in the ceiling,
> which is very informative. However, many of these do not directly connected
> with the survey
> measurements. It is possible to make a special entry like <value
> name='temperature' units='celsius'>8.2</value>
> where any measured data will go.
True. However, would it be worthwhile to delineate the Survey data section from the
Inventory or Picture or ? section?
<Cave>
<Surveys>
</Surveys>
<Inventory>
</Inventory>
<Pictures>
</Pictures>
</Cave>
or should the information be integrated:
<Survey>
<Station ..../>
<Station ..../>
<Shot ..../>
<Inventory ..../>
<Picture ...../>
</Survey>
?
> I think I have some language problems. Could you explain some terms :
> > > Interpoint <== what's this ?
> > > Spur <== what's this ?
> What's the difference between node and station ? leg and measurement ? map
> and survey ?
Good questions. Peter?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 10 2002 - 21:35:00 CEST