 |
 |
Andrew Millard wrote >We may want standard visualisations for certain purposes, but a proper >data structure will allow you and me to view the same data just as each of >us want, without having to agree on a visualisation in order to exchange >data. I'm writing/viewing this message in Pine, other list members will >be using all sorts of software with different fonts etc, but because there >is an agreed data structure, the presentation is separated from the >content. At which point it must be time to call in the XML experts..... I think Andrew's making a crucial point here about the separation of content from presentation. Both are undeniably important, but it may be more worthwhile to discuss them separately. So may I suggest that we split this discussion into 2 threads: 1 - Data Structure and Standards eg. encoding schemes such as XML and GML; types of spatial and non- spatial data we'd want to record; locating/constructing appropriate vocabularies/thesauri; how to ensure interoperability between different GIS/SMR systems. 2 - Presentation issues Obviously this will depend in part on the conclusions reached in the previous thread, but there are also some general issues that can be addressed right away. For example, what do different groups require from an SMR visualisation? (eg. professional archaeologists, local historians, curious individuals, planning authorities etc.) Karen -- Karen J Walford Tel. 0121 693 3397 Azuli IT http://www.azuli.co.uk