NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
HI Gerry: I understand, but I think it is more a question of being observations that had some property which is point valued, rather than being points first. Keiran's example is relevant as the observation could have multiple geometric characteristics associated with it. I hope I did not in any way imply you were "clueless" - not at all my intention. I think your viewpoint leads to more rigid structures for data representation and that was certainly the case in the domain of conventionalplanimetry.
I would argue that no instrumentation can make point measurements - but that will get us into a longer and likely not so useful debate. R
-----Original Message----- From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Creager Sent: March 13, 2008 10:03 AM To: Unidata GALEON Subject: Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs Ron, et al, Ah, but then it becomes a science-discipline semantics issue, too. I do think in terms of making "point" observations of in-situ weather data. The observation is made at a fixed location, at a particular finite time, and its geometric property is not a bounded region or polygon, but a point. Realizing there are gaps in this (wind is measured at 10m above ground, temperature, humidity, pressure at 2 meters, precipitation at 1 meter, direct and diffuse solar radiation at nominally 2m but may vary, etc) the data are represented to end-users as being at a single spatial point. Think of it as semantic collision rather than assimilation. And, while I don't think I'm completely clueless, I've spoken at the TCs, and mentioned to you in the past, about "point features" in my use of WFS to represent observations, without discussion. gerry
galeon archives: