Richard Knapp wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:36:16 -0500, Ralph Hartley wrote:
>
>> But not only are names ugly, they are also untrustworthy and
>> incompatible. They really need to be converted into something universal
>> and unambiguous. This translation needs to be done AS CLOSE TO THE
>> SOURCE OF THE DATA AS POSSIBLE. Otherwise something will be lost in
>> translation.
>
>
> Sounds like using a common unit base for storing data. The problem is the original data is not stored; it must
> be recreated from the "new" data. If pulling the original station ID back into the shot is too much work, is it
> really worthwhile? Does the original data get corrupted because is has been changed, even by this simple
> substitution?
Whoever does the conversion has to decide how much of the original he
wants to include. My proposal allows enough information to be included
to reproduce the original station names exactly, images of the notations
in the the survey book could even be used. Whether or not anyone thinks
it is worthwhile to go back to the original names is not my choice,
often I expect that they would, and it needs to be (and I think is) easy.
As for units for the data, it could (and has) been argued either way. I
would favor using the original units, because the conversion process is
irreversible (round off, number of digits etc.). I would demand that
there must be a STANDARD way to describe the units that were used, and
that a units descriptor (which is also not usually found in the notes)
must be REQUIRED (because that is not recreatable either).
I might also accept allowing something like a "meters" attribute, for
those that disagree (I see little need for it). As long as there is at
least an option to include the original numbers.
Ralph Hartley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:00 CEST