NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi, I would not think that the point features are I any way the feature of interest - they are the locations (sequences of locations) of the observations or to which the observation results are referenced. I don't believe there is any confusion there. The overall objective (OGC et al) is to find a set of abstractions that work across a wide variety of domains. The notion of observation is one such thing and like other types of features (things, entities) can have a location (or set of locations) as well as time or set of times associated with it - the it being the act of the observing. When we collect a bunch of the observation results together and separate from the context (act of observing) they may form a coverage, and one can quite rightly in my view refer to the points within the coverage. The argument is more (or less) about should we talk about observations that have point geometries associated with them, or point observations, the latter is I guess the view of Andrew W. et al. Ron
-----Original Message----- From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Luis Bermudez Sent: March 13, 2008 7:15 PM To: <Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx> Cc: galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs Hi Simon, excellent.I've been feeling and expressing this same idea. Feature of Interest should be an earth realm or a name place from a gazetteer, where we could infer the earth realm. Should not be a geometry, as Ron said.But, my feeling is that when a domain scientists refer to a type of data ( trajectory, station, profile .. ) they are really referring to characteristics of the observing procedure ( in this case .. the constraint behavior of a sensor or platform ) which is confused sometimes with the feature of interest.-Luis
galeon archives: