 |
 |
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