Re: Other Definitions - Raw vs Field

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

From: P A Hill & E V Goodall (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 18:10:06 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 B837B15934 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:32:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 733E014620; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:32:13 +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 5A2FC15934 for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:32:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 125E47E8A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:32:09 +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 C576515934 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mgr2.xmission.com (mgr2.xmission.com [198.60.22.202]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 411107E5A for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:32:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [198.60.22.200] (helo=mail.xmission.com) by mgr2.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 184kYx-0002fH-02 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:10:23 -0600
Received: from goodhill.dsl.xmission.com ([198.60.114.17] helo=xmission.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 184kYx-00024J-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:10:23 -0600
Message-ID: <3DB81B5E.7050105@xmission.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:10:06 -0600
From: P A Hill & E V Goodall <goodhill_at_xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Subject: Re: Other Definitions - Raw vs Field
References: <20021024102759.3FB34157AC_at_karmail.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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


Richard Knapp wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:06:32 -0600, P A Hill & E V Goodall wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Knapp wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see
>>>how a sketch or image can make the "jump" from Field data to Raw data if
>>>the given constraints are to be maintained.
>>
>>A sketch doesn't make it to Raw. Did I say that? If so, I didn't mean to.
>
> Where does it say this in any of the definitions?

Are you wanting to make sure it does?
Let's go back to the definition as you said. What part of them do you
think needs clarification in either to include or exclude this possibility?

Are these the last versions of the definitions?
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================

========================================================================
Raw data -- Field data when converted unchanged into character-based
form, or downloaded from an instrument.
========================================================================

Of course, I'm still leaning toward use of the term "text-based" and not
"character-based".

So I supposed yes if you have some text version of walls or other parts of
the sketch, in some form that is ready for something to parse words and
numbers, i.e. text based, then I suppose we would call it "raw sketch
data". There is no requirement or definitions at this time of what is or
could be in raw data, so far we are only trying to define the term. Am I
violating the definitions by stating the above?

Comments?

-Paul


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 23:00:00 CET