Actually they are referring to the characteristics of the sampling
strategy.
This can be described in the context of the procedure/platform/sensor,
or in the context of the foi, or simply reflected by the coverage-domain
within a result expressed as a coverage. They are none of them wrong. My
sense is that common practice in the fluid-earth sciences is the latter
- mostly what is being shifted around is a
result-with-sampling-strategy-embedded-within (i.e. the grid
parameters). That's OK. IMHO the O&M model allows us to understand this
better as it provides a language to describe it.
______
Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx CSIRO Exploration & Mining
26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151
PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102 AUSTRALIA
T: +61 (0)8 6436 8639 Cell: +61 (0) 403 302 672
Polycom PVX: 130.116.146.28
<http://www.csiro.au>
ABN: 41 687 119 230
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Luis Bermudez
Sent: Friday, 14 March 2008 11:15 AM
To: Cox, Simon (E&M, Kensington)
Cc: gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx; galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs
Hi Simon, excellent.
I've been feeling and expressing this same idea. Feature of Interest
should be an earth realm or a name place from a gazetteer, where we
could infer the earth realm. Should not be a geometry, as Ron said.
But, my feeling is that when a domain scientists refer to a type of
data ( trajectory, station, profile .. ) they are really referring to
characteristics of the observing procedure ( in this case .. the
constraint behavior of a sensor or platform ) which is confused
sometimes with the feature of interest.
-Luis
