NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
The intent of my contributions is to support interoperability, if possible, *between* as well as within domains. That primarily requires conformance to certain standards when transferring data, or making it available for transfer, across domain boundaries. It does not require any change within the domain (if they are already happy) and even less at the persistence level. But if a domain decides it is in its interest to look across domain boundaries, then the O&M formalization provides a basic model of the information which is probably required to achieve this. Simon ______ Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx CSIRO Exploration & Mining 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151 PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102 AUSTRALIA T: +61 (0)8 6436 8639 Cell: +61 (0) 403 302 672 Polycom PVX: 130.116.146.28 <http://www.csiro.au> ABN: 41 687 119 230
-----Original Message----- From: Gerry Creager [mailto:gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, 14 March 2008 12:45 PM To: Dr Luis Bermudez Cc: Cox, Simon (E&M, Kensington); galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs 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
galeon archives: