Ron, et al,
Ah, but then it becomes a science-discipline semantics issue, too.
I do think in terms of making "point" observations of in-situ weather data.
The observation is made at a fixed location, at a particular finite time, and its
geometric property is not a bounded region or polygon, but a point. Realizing there are
gaps in this (wind is measured at 10m above ground, temperature, humidity, pressure at 2
meters, precipitation at 1 meter, direct and diffuse solar radiation at nominally 2m but
may vary, etc) the data are represented to end-users as being at a single spatial point.
Think of it as semantic collision rather than assimilation.
And, while I don't think I'm completely clueless, I've spoken at the TCs, and mentioned
to you in the past, about "point features" in my use of WFS to represent
observations, without discussion.
gerry
Ron Lake wrote:
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
