NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Let me just emphasize the following:"The types we propose do not compete with OGC feature types, but are intended to reflect data organization in existing file formats, and to guide practical implementations of OGC and similar data services."
The CDM tries to describe the info we actually have in operational datasets. We "start at the bottom" and are trying to work our way up the semantic ladder. The OGC data models start at a higher level. Its not surprising (to me) that the two models are not identical, nor should they be.
thanks for the interesting comments! Gerry Creager wrote:
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: