That's a good solution from my point of view.
Regards
Burkhardt
Am 11.11.2005 um 11:02 schrieb Bryan Lawrence:
>
> Hi Jonathan, Rurkhardt
>
> I think this is an issue that will come to us more and more ... so
> coming up
> with a standard solution makes a lot of sense.
>
> Firstly, I agree the file should be self describing, and I think
> the solution
> you propose will be compact and appropriate. However I would
> recommend that
> we *eventually* standardise the string values *and* the numerical
> encoding
> values (ie the standard name system would have to include the
> values as well,
> and the numerical corrrespondents).
>
> In doing so we should follow the ISO extension model for
> enumeriations, that
> is, not allow users to add their own additional enumerations (if
> they have
> extra classes of land cover for example that are not in the
> standard), but
> rather allow users to add their own long_names and enemerations
> which could
> eventually become standardised ...
>
> One might argue that if we have standardised the numerical
> encodings and the
> values in the standard name system then we don't need to repeat it
> in the
> file. However, I think it is a level of redundancy which costs very
> little,
> makes the software easier to build, and provides a lot of future
> proofing, in
> that folk can lay down files which use their own encodings but also
> have some
> hope of different folks doing things that are comparable (in time).
>
> Meanwhile, until we have the new standard name person in post, I
> think your
> proposed solution is workable and most of what I suggest above can
> be put in
> hold (until someone has the time to make it less incoherent).
>
> Cheers
> Bryan
>
>
-----------
Dr. Burkhardt Rockel
GKSS Forschungszentrum
Max-Planck-Strasse
D-21502 Geesthacht
Germany
Phone: +49 4152 87 2008
Fax: +49 4152 87 2020
Email: Burkhardt.Rockel at gkss.de
www:
http://coast.gkss.de
-----------
Received on Fri Nov 11 2005 - 04:59:18 GMT
