On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Neil Campling wrote:
> It's two sides of the same coin. What's the point in have common
> terminologies, but wildly different symbols / icons ?
As an outsider who rarely uses GIS or SMRs it seems to me that the point
is that terminology should be mapped to symbols by a legend, which can be
amended as necessary. It's no good having pink dots for findspots of
Roman coins if you want to overlay with a water company layer which has
pink spots for fire hydrants. If the underlying data uses clear
terminology then all that is necessary is to change the legend, otherwise
things get too complicated. It may also be that you want one "symbology"
for one purpose and another for a different purpose. Sometimes you want
to visually differentiate ancient hedgerows from other field boundaries,
sometimes you don't.
> I could specify
> that a contractor categorize his findings to a common standard but if
> the contractor uses "HappyMapper" [what a name !] to visualise these
> findings, I won't be able to look at it or even print it out.
Exactly. But if the underlying termimology and data structure are
standardised, then there ought to be a file transfer format which allows
you to import the data and apply your own legend.
> Categorisation goes hand in hand with visualisation. We need common
> standards for visualisation too.
I disagree. Visualisation depends on the task at hand. If the data
terminology is good then one can choose a suitable visualisation for the
task at hand.
Andrew
=========================================================================
Dr. Andrew Millard [log in to unmask]
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Tel: +44 191 374 4757
South Road, Durham. DH1 3LE. United Kingdom. Fax: +44 191 374 3619
http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/
=========================================================================
|