Hi,
I don't think anyone is arguing about the merit of point, profile etc
geometries - maybe more the hierarchy of the semantics. These things
seem to me to ALL be observations or collections of observations. IS
their disagreement on that? I don't think anyone is trying to tell
anyone how to think about the world - but we are seeking to develop the
appropriate abstractions in a manner that can generalize across multiple
domains. Marine and atmospheric scientists are by no means the only
group of people who make measurements that are associated with points in
space, points along tracks etc. I think the "rift" here is less deep
than you think.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Botts [mailto:mike.botts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: March 13, 2008 2:18 PM
To: 'Woolf, A (Andrew)'; Ron Lake; 'Gerry Creager'; 'Unidata GALEON'
Subject: RE: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs
Andrew.
I agree that there are geometries around which we often base our data in
the scientific community. However, perhaps what Gerry is talking about
comes from a SWE influence where we focus more on pure observations,
which can then be organized into geometries based on your needs or based
on the sampling pattern.
Perhaps the attached email from the SensorML Forum might explain this
concept better.
Thanks.
Mike Botts
