Let me just emphasize the following:
"The types we propose do not compete with OGC feature types, but are
intended to reflect data organization in existing file formats, and to
guide practical implementations of OGC and similar data services."
The CDM tries to describe the info we actually have in operational
datasets. We "start at the bottom" and are trying to work our way up the
semantic ladder. The OGC data models start at a higher level. Its not
surprising (to me) that the two models are not identical, nor should
they be.
thanks for the interesting comments!
Gerry Creager wrote:
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
