Hi,
I would not think that the point features are I any way the feature of interest
- they are the locations (sequences of locations) of the observations or to
which the observation results are referenced. I don't believe there is any
confusion there. The overall objective (OGC et al) is to find a set of
abstractions that work across a wide variety of domains. The notion of
observation is one such thing and like other types of features (things,
entities) can have a location (or set of locations) as well as time or set of
times associated with it - the it being the act of the observing. When we
collect a bunch of the observation results together and separate from the
context (act of observing) they may form a coverage, and one can quite rightly
in my view refer to the points within the coverage. The argument is more (or
less) about should we talk about observations that have point geometries
associated with them, or point observations, the latter is I guess the view of
Andrew W. et al.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Luis Bermudez
Sent: March 13, 2008 7:15 PM
To: <Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: 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
