HI Gerry:
I understand, but I think it is more a question of being observations
that had some property which is point valued, rather than being points
first. Keiran's example is relevant as the observation could have
multiple geometric characteristics associated with it. I hope I did not
in any way imply you were "clueless" - not at all my intention. I think
your viewpoint leads to more rigid structures for data representation
and that was certainly the case in the domain of conventional
planimetry.
I would argue that no instrumentation can make point measurements - but
that will get us into a longer and likely not so useful debate.
R
-----Original Message-----
From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Creager
Sent: March 13, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Unidata GALEON
Subject: Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs
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
