Re: Canonicalized values was: ...BlueBook/ (fwd)

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: R Knapp (gyp_caver_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 12:00:30 CET


Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>
Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 7CEC29F3A for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Thu,  7 Feb 2002 13:39:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 8DB2E9F2D; Thu,  7 Feb 2002 13:38:58 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 8A8B69F3A for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu,  7 Feb 2002 13:38:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp011.mail.yahoo.com (smtp011.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.31]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with SMTP id D050D9ED1 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu,  7 Feb 2002 13:38:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from slip-12-64-186-189.mis.prserv.net (HELO Muphin) (12.64.186.189) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 12:18:01 -0000
From: "R Knapp" <gyp_caver_at_yahoo.com>
To: "cavexml_at_cartography.ch" <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 06:00:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: PMMail 2.20.2370 for OS/2 Warp 4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Canonicalized values was: ...BlueBook/ (fwd)
Message-Id: <20020207123853.D050D9ED1@karmail.ethz.ch>
Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11

On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:23:12 -0700, P A Hill & E V Goodall wrote:

> What the heck I'll join in.

Excellent!

> Just to help John make his pedantic point (which he needs no help in doing).

!

> Specifying the units of the standard values at the top wouldn't be in the spirit of
> a 'canonical form'. The whole point of the idea of a canonical form is to allow:
> (1) the original to be preserved
> but also provide the convenience of
> (2) some standard form that can be easier to process by anything large or small which
> would like to do something useful (but often a narrowly focused use). This could be
> anything 'down the pipe' as John has said. It is a bit 'mean' to require every last
> tool to have to work through all tags and understand units just to get some basic
> facts, or generate some basic picture.

I guess it is the difference between being explicit or implicit. If all info is
presented, it helps remove doubt. The attributes I'm suggesting won't be buried; it would
be right at the top.... as in:

<CaveXML version="0.02" value_angles="degrees" value_distances="meters"
xmlns="http://www.CaveXML.org">

... or canon_angles and such...

Nothing fancy.

> But what happens if the original was in the same units as the standard units?

An excellent argument!

I like both:
 <Distance reading="10" value="3.05"/>
 <Distance original="10" value="3.05"/>

or

 <Distance value="3.05"/>

when canonical units match survey units. It makes it much clearer than having redunancy
for:

 <Distance reading="3.05" value="3.05"/>

        Richard Knapp
        gyp_caver_at_yahoo.com


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 23:00:00 CET