NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Ron, et al, Ah, but then it becomes a science-discipline semantics issue, too. I do think in terms of making "point" observations of in-situ weather data. The observation is made at a fixed location, at a particular finite time, and its geometric property is not a bounded region or polygon, but a point. Realizing there are gaps in this (wind is measured at 10m above ground, temperature, humidity, pressure at 2 meters, precipitation at 1 meter, direct and diffuse solar radiation at nominally 2m but may vary, etc) the data are represented to end-users as being at a single spatial point. Think of it as semantic collision rather than assimilation. And, while I don't think I'm completely clueless, I've spoken at the TCs, and mentioned to you in the past, about "point features" in my use of WFS to represent observations, without discussion. gerry Ron Lake wrote:
Hi all:Just a quick comment. I think the idea of a “point feature” is misguided. The items covered in the list of point feature types is better covered as an observation feature or observation event. The observation or observation collection then has geometric characteristics such as where the observer was located, or where the observations are located. I am generally opposed to the idea of defining features by their geometry properties since this has the semantics backwards. No instrument can make “point measurements” – so the items are observations first and these observations then have geometric properties (like location or estimated location).Cheers Ron
galeon archives: