The intent of my contributions is to support interoperability, if possible,
*between* as well as within domains. That primarily requires conformance to certain
standards when transferring data, or making it available for transfer, across
domain boundaries. It does not require any change within the domain (if they are
already happy) and even less at the persistence level. But if a domain decides it
is in its interest to look across domain boundaries, then the O&M formalization
provides a basic model of the information which is probably required to achieve
this.
Simon
______
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: Gerry Creager [mailto:gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 14 March 2008 12:45 PM
To: Dr Luis Bermudez
Cc: Cox, Simon (E&M, Kensington); galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [galeon] Fwd: CDM feature and point types docs
Part of the problem here is acceptance, as Andrew pointed out. What
you're saying is that a domain scientist, who is being explicit in his
description of data collection, procedures, processes, and coverages now
has to conform to the manner another group has dictated.
An atmospheric or ocean scientist today, save a precious few will have
no idea of how to relate to a gazetteer or redefine their observation in
a earth realm unless it's consistent with their experience and training.
We're not out to retrain the world into geospatial data conformists,
but rather, to help the world interoperate. Somehow, the intent seems
to get lost in this discussion.
gerry