NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
An observation typically has several locations associated with it - e.g. where the world was sampled, where the instrument was (different if it is a remote sensor, or a lab instrument), where the data was processed to generate the result that is reported (may be different again) - all of which may be of interest in particular use-cases. The OGC O&M standard reconciles this by separating the *feature-of-interest* and the *procedure* each of which may have location (e.g. a point). If you elide this detail then your observation model will not generalize. That may be OK within your community or domain, but will probably hamper interoperability with other domains. Simon
From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Lake Sent: Friday, 14 March 2008 1:28 AM To: Ben Domenico; Unidata GALEON Subject: Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs Hi all: Just a quick comment. I think the idea of a "point feature" is misguided. The items covered in the list of point feature types is better covered as an observation feature or observation event. The observation or observation collection then has geometric characteristics such as where the observer was located, or where the observations are located. I am generally opposed to the idea of defining features by their geometry properties since this has the semantics backwards. No instrument can make "point measurements" - so the items are observations first and these observations then have geometric properties (like location or estimated location). Cheers Ron
galeon archives: