I'll revisit O&M Part 2, and admit now that I gave it, at best, a
cursory review last time. However, I continue to suggest that part of
the problem is that the domain scientists don't all speak "geospatial"
as well as they could, and make inference based less on strict
definitions than preference and bias. The result is that the potential
for interoperability is reduced until we can resolve the semantic
issues, and these will likely not be readily resolved with an RDF
document or two because of mis-communication.
gerry
Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx wrote:
In fact what is measured is the property of the *stuff at the point* -
i.e. this is a sampling issue. The stuff is the atmosphere, its property
is its thermodynamic potential, and it is sampled at the point. This is
what O&M Part 2 Sampling Features is about, and is why every sampling
feature (of which SamplingPoint is a special case) has a
"sampledFeature" such as "the atmosphere".
So, I suggest a good look at O&M Part 2 is in order. I know that Andrew
W has already done this, since he was on the RWG and is credited as one
of the contributors since he provided a lot of feedback.
Simon
