Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List

New Message	Reply	About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Sun Mar 24 2002 - 00:07:06 CET

Next message: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"
Previous message: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: "Ignore" attribute"
Next in thread: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"
Reply: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:07:06 +1100
From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020315112842.01d4d210@popa.melbpc.org.au>
Subject: Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List
To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch

Dear All,

Sorry this email has been delayed in getting out - some things came up
which I had to attend to.

No further comments were received about the draft Task List, however I
missed an earlier comment of Alexander's which is relevant:

At 13:04 21-01-02 +0300, Alexander Nickolsky wrote:
[snip]
>Before being able to successfully design a standard format it seems
>necessary to reach concensus on a common data model
[snip]
>The process of cave surveying has at least three stages, each of them
>having its own data model.
[snip]

And these issues were also flagged up in the piece by Martin Heller and
Andreas Neumann on our "Topics" web page under "Data model, Concepts" at:
http://www.karto.ethz.ch/neumann/caving/cavexml/issues.html

So we will need to allow for at least these three stages of data which are
involved when we produce a cave map, namely, (1) the survey raw data, (2)
the finally accepted co-ordinates of the calculated stations, sometimes
with the walls/floor/ceiling, and (3) a digital form of the final drawn
map. Sometimes Stage 3 will not exist of course, i.e. when the map is only
on paper (as I understand it, the jury is still out on whether manual or
computer aided map-drafting is easiest!). And there is also the other
question which has been raised, namely the various sketches, including
cross-sections, made in the cave and which form part of the raw survey
data. Each of these stages contains a different type of data and *may*
therefore need its own separate exchange/archiving format.

Martin and Andreas' piece divides things up slightly differently to the
above by citing stages of Survey, Model, and Views, but I am not sure at
this stage that I totally understand what is in each (M+A can you elaborate
a bit more than your following explanation?): "Survey includes the raw
survey data, observations, and attributes; the Model defines morphological
units, describes how to build their geometrical description and links them
with attributes. Finally, the views define visual representations, such as
perspective views, and the detailed maps and extended profiles as typically
drawn in a CAD or illustration-package."

So for your consideration here is my first simplistic attempt at revamping
our original tasklist to take these factors into account:

Tasks (Individual high-level tasks we need to do to achieve our
Objectives.)
===== [My comments shown in square brackets]

1. Draw up the Scope and Objectives for the group. [Done]

2. Establish the official WG delegate for each interested country (UIS
voting is by
country). [Not started]

3. Catch up with the good work which has already been done in this area:
Each existing
worker to post a "summary" of what they have done, as well as point us
to their
detail, e.g. via their web page. [Done]

4. Establish a website and mailinglist as a platform for discussion and
publishing
roadmaps, working drafts and results. [Done]

5. Decide on the range of fields which we need to consider in a
survey/mapping data transfer:

5.1 Draw up survey and mapping data model(s).
[I have prepared an initial draft diagram and entity definitions for
discussion.]

5.2 Fill out the fields needed in each entity of the model. [Many
already discussed]

5.3 Define each of these fields.

*. Decide how many separate transfer formats will be needed, e.g. survey
data, co-ordinates,
map graphics. Can/should some of these be combined into one format?

*. Decide how we will handle the map graphics.

6. Define the structure of each XML file required: root-element, nesting,
elements
and attributes, etc. [much discussion has already taken place; various
people
have produced possible examples]

7. Produce regular working drafts for the proposed standards.

8. Provide DTD and Schema of each XML file.

9. Provide Documentation of the field definitions and data structure.

10. Publish the Working Drafts for discussion and comments.

11. Make Revisions after public comment.

12. Vote by WG delegates.

13. Ratification by UISIC.

14. Publicise the format after acceptance.

15. Produce explanatory and training material.

16. List the software needed and organise it to get produced.

*************************

Your comments please...

Regards,

Peter

Next message: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"
Previous message: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: "Ignore" attribute"
Next in thread: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"
Reply: P A Hill & E V Goodall: "Re: CaveXML work plan - Task List"

New Message	Reply	About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 23:00:01 CEST