From: P A Hill & E V Goodall (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 17:14:40 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 35308159F0 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:37:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id D964715902; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:37:35 +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 97342159F0 for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:37:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 4DC1115876; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:37:31 +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 0D9EC159F0 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:37:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mgr4.xmission.com (mgr4.xmission.com [198.60.22.204]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 667A88A95 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:37:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [198.60.22.200] (helo=mail.xmission.com) by mgr4.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1856Aq-00047X-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:14:56 -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 1856Aq-000480-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:14:56 -0600 Message-ID: <3DB95FE0.9060802@xmission.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:14:40 -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: <20021025103758.6AE5F1598E_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 Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:10:06 -0600, P A Hill & E V Goodall wrote:
> Yes. It should be very clear to ensure no confusion or ambiguity (like
> mine).
>>========================================================================
>>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.
>>========================================================================
> Data starts as Field, then Raw, then Edited, Final, etc. This has the
> appearance of a process or a sequence of steps the data takes from one
> form (Field) to wherever it ends (ie. Leg).
Well I think there should be something that says these are _possible_
_states_ of data, not required _steps_ that data passes through nor are
they forms in which data has to exist. I think we can call it a sequence,
but any data set might have never stopped or even ever existed as all of
them. I can't see how you'd be able to tell the difference between
Adjusted dataset which existed in all these forms but all the intermediate
results have been (sadly) discarded and an adjusted dataset which never
actually existed in any file in any system in anything but "final" and
"adjusted".
> So sketches and images are mentioned as Field data. The next definition
> talks about converting Field data. If the sketches and images are to exist
> or remain in some other form - a form other than the one stated - then
> some sort of explanation should be given on why they can violate this
> (apparent) next step.
The definitions include the possibility of sketch data converted to
anything that qualifies as character (or text) based. The questions that
have yet to be answered are things like whether CaveXML has a place where
that type of data might go, and whether the standard format defines what
that would look like or just leaves enough space in the CaveXML to allow
such data in the future. But that is for another day, the point here is
whether the definitions of "field" and "raw" suffice for use in defining
what is expected or allowed in any future format?
We will have to revisit the definitions in the future, if while inventing
tags and attributes someone comes up with something that can not be
identified with one of the terms we are defining at this phase.
Cheers,
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 23:00:00 CET