devinkouts@earthlink.net wrote:
> Examples include
> creation of ID's or organizing shots into <Groups>. I'm not suggesting
> these things are invalid constructs but they do not occur as a result of
> the survey process (node 1), they don't appear in the survey book data
> store, and you can't force them to occur in the data entry process (node
> 2) (because we have a half dozen or more survey editor developers out
> there).
I don't know what your surveyors do, but the ones I've worked with
come back with names for rooms passages and features all written in
the book.
Why? Because without a computer in the loop, or just some line ploting
application, the only way anything is going to make the map or be listed
as a lead, or be recorded for history, etc. is by some text
_IN_THE_BOOK.
Simple enough.
If you are serious about getting the orginal data into the system
the need to "group" or have some method to apply a name to various
points
in the survey is required, thus my world view differs from yours,
because names of groups of shots is part of the original book archive.
> Instead I would
> suggest creating a "ClosedLoopXML", a "LineplotXML", etc.
I am much more on the same page as John Halleck, later passes might add
_separate_ elements, but these elements certainly could be right next
to (or nested within) the original, in fact I'd prefer it.
Just like some interesting extension that defines extra tags, later
processing steps could inset whatever and not screw up folks just
looking for the basics. Wasn't his one of your stated goals?
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:01 CEST