Part of the problem here is acceptance, as Andrew pointed out. What
you're saying is that a domain scientist, who is being explicit in his
description of data collection, procedures, processes, and coverages now
has to conform to the manner another group has dictated.
An atmospheric or ocean scientist today, save a precious few will have
no idea of how to relate to a gazetteer or redefine their observation in
a earth realm unless it's consistent with their experience and training.
We're not out to retrain the world into geospatial data conformists,
but rather, to help the world interoperate. Somehow, the intent seems
to get lost in this discussion.
gerry
Luis Bermudez wrote:
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
