Re: Coverage/Feature/Observation "concept minimization" (was Re: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights)

NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.

I am not as articulate as many on this list, and I got lost sometimes in the meanings of some of the abstractions. But here is something I wrote quickly to Ben earlier today that captures some of my concerns, as one of the "users" Peter metions - not as well stated as I would like but I hope the gist of the idea is there.

Everything is a feature.....


Hi Ben:

So I actually got a little time to think, and I never was very fast and as an old fogey my brain is getting even slower, but....

In an abstract sense, it may make sense that everything is a feature, but in a practical sense it will lead to a tools/data mismatch that is not efficient, and therefore I do not feel is a useful model.

For example, in statistics the tools that you use if the data are iid are different than the tool you use if the data are a time series, and are different than the tools you use if the data is purely spatial, and these differ than from the tools for space- time, and multivariate timeseries, and multivariate space-time data. There is no one method works best under all situations. If all I know is that I am getting back is a feature, I know very little, and matching the feature to the tool will be difficult.

Same with visualization tools - some are best for certain types of data, and no one is best for all types (GIS systems are crummy with dealing with time, or time/depth). Having data models that reflect the types of data that we have (or the types of data that will be returned) allows for the proper match.





  • 2007 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the galeon archives: