From: Peter MATTHEWS (matthews_at_melbpc.org.au)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 22:19:03 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 4CA4C1594D for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:38:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 16A5B15929; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:38:51 +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 C7F711594D for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:38:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 8F8A315878; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:38:46 +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 2A22315949 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:38:46 +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 C53637DE6 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:38:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from peter.melbpc.org.au (a1-15.melbpc.org.au [203.12.158.15]) by relay1.melbpc.org.au (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9GKNooP087863 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:23:51 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from matthews_at_melbpc.org.au) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20021017055829.01d72880@popa.melbpc.org.au> X-Sender: matthews_at_popa.melbpc.org.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:19:03 +1000 To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch From: Peter MATTHEWS <matthews_at_melbpc.org.au> Subject: Re: Other Definitions In-Reply-To: <3DADBD0A.9080409_at_xmission.com> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20021011055526.01d5f200_at_popa.melbpc.org.au> <5.1.0.14.1.20021016194555.01d61390_at_popa.melbpc.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.4(snapshot 20020706) (relay1) 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
At 13:24 16-10-02 -0600, P A Hill & E V Goodall wrote:
>Peter MATTHEWS wrote:
>>===================================================================================
>>
>>Field data The original data and sketches recorded in the field, e.g.
>>paper-based,
>> or images thereof, or data still stored and observable in
>> an instrument.
>>===================================================================================
>>
>
>I think I can see where you are heading, but 'still stored' seems a bit
>off the mark.
>
>The Field Data is still Field Data even if my trick Turbo 9000+ cave
>survey device which I spent my last hard earned Euro buying just got
>kicked over a cliff when it fell off the donkey on the way back from the cave.
>
>But this idea of differentiating between
>1. data as the survey process generated it -- "as is"
>vs.
>2. data in a form that is probably ready for the next step.
>
>is a good one.
>
>I see one problem with the definitions of "raw data" vs "field data".
>The definitions don't specify whether either is in a standard form
>(CaveXML etc.) I could picture the difference between "field" and "raw"
>as a format change.
>
>"field" = as the instrument spit it out (just like the image of the book
>page is as we have it without changes), where the "raw" form is slightly
>processed in that that it is in a regular/usable/standard form.
>
>I guess then we might speak of SMAPS Raw Data, Compass Raw Data or CaveXML
>Raw Data, but hand written field data or instrument generated field data.
>
>So could someone write a definition which makes that distinction?
>
>-Paul
As I understand it from the original discussions, these definitions were
not intended to address what format the data was in, but rather what stage
of refinement it was at. I think if we try to include format also, it is
too open ended and will become too complicated. Data at any of the listed
stages could be in a whole range of formats, including XML, but that is a
separate, essentially independent, descriptor, and does not need to
complicate this set of definitions.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 23:00:00 CET