I think it is an inadvertent hangover from when we were considering
having all sorts of value-components (e.g. north-limit, easting) defined
as first-class qualifers, which were subsequently buried within "schemes"
such as DCMIPOINT. I belive it was just a bit of tidying-up that did not
get done when they were removed from the proposal.
However ... this does expose the risk of voting on these qualifiers one-by-one -
it is quite likely that only some from a logical group will be approved,
and in the absence of some other qualifiers, some of the "approved" ones
either do not make sense, or are very much incomplete - the final
proposal in Relation is riddled with such inconsistencies IMHO.
"Weibel,Stu" wrote:
>
> OK... it would appear that Simon has identified a logical conflict in the
> definition of DD and DMS.
>
> A clarification from the Coverage Working Group is in order. Did we
> misconstrue the definition in our construction of the ballot (if so, please
> indicate how), or is this simply mis-conceived and we have an easy reject?
>
> Paul? Any other coveragers?
>
> stu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller,Eric [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 1:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: How are DD and DMS qualifiers for Coverage??
>
> Never mind... Centroids require a coordinate. After rereading the
> descriptions of these encoding schemes, these are encoding individual
> components of such a coordinate and as such (as Simon points out) not enough
> by themselves to make sense.
>
> eric
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miller,Eric [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 1:13 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RE: How are DD and DMS qualifiers for Coverage??
> >
> >
> > Simon writes...
> >
> > > As caster of the sole vote against DD and DMS for coverage
> > > (and as one of the more longstanding advocates of DC in the
> > > geospatial community ... ;-))
> > > I'd like to understand why I'm in such a minority.
> > >
> > > My basic problem with "degrees" (whether decimal, or with minutes
> > > and seconds!) is that I can't see how a single number expressed in
> > > degrees defines a place? NB any example which codes more than one
> > > number into the value is *CANNOT* be called just "degrees": it is a
> > > more complex value with more structure, such as a specified
> > sequence
> > > of northings and eastings.
> >
> > DD and DMS (as represented in the ballot) are encoding
> > schemes of 'Place'
> > (not 'Coverage') along with DCMIBOX, TGN, etc. That being
> > said, my first
> > reaction was as yours (these don't make sense... so we may be
> > in a minority
> > of 2 here :).
> >
> > Not being as familiar as I'd like with the coverage
> > discussions on this
> > point, the only thing I could think of while entering this in
> > the database
> > was the identification of spatial 'centroids'. 'Centroids'
> > are quite often
> > *very* useful in quick point-and-radius spatial calculations.
> > If this is
> > not the rationale behind these proposed encoding schemes,
> > then again, as
> > individual encoding schemes, they make very little sense.
> >
> > --
> > eric
> >
--
Best Simon
|