NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.

To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.

Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs

NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.

Case 1 is related to the datum of observation. Case 2 is the sensor geolocation. Both of these are pertinent. I'm not sure if Case 3 is (A)the reprojected observation (or actual geolocation of the observation if different from Case 2) or (B) the location of actual processing. If (A), it's pertinent. If (B) it's a curiosity.
"Procedure" can well contain information on Cases 1 and 2, and 3(A). Case 3(B) isn't pertinent, unless I'm really missing something.
One thing to consider is that within a subset of domains, interoperability is realistic. Over the general solution set, it becomes really problemmatical when real use cases intrude. 

gerry

Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx wrote:
An observation typically has several locations associated with it – e.g. where the world was sampled, where the instrument was (different if it is a remote sensor, or a lab instrument), where the data was processed to generate the result that is reported (may be different again) – all of which may be of interest in particular use-cases.
The OGC O&M standard reconciles this by separating the **feature-of-interest** and the **procedure** each of which may have location (e.g. a point). 

If you elide this detail then your observation model will not generalize.
That may be OK within your community or domain, but will probably hamper interoperability with other domains. 

Simon
  • 2008 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the galeon archives: