Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of MolesDiscussion


Ignore:
Timestamp:
17/07/06 15:45:09 (13 years ago)
Author:
lawrence
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • MolesDiscussion

    v3 v4  
    3030 
    3131Issue CH2: The Online Reference type  
    32 [[Image(dgOnlineReferenceType)]] 
     32[[Image(dgOnlineReferenceType.png)]] 
    3333should evolve towards something that exploits xlink, so that we can indicate whether 
    3434one expects to insert the linked object, point to the linked object, or render the remote object, and insert it ... 
     
    4747the data entity, and the information we put in a data granule. 
    4848 
     49Starting with the data granule: 
     50 
     51[[Image(dgDataGranule.jpg)]] 
     52 
     53we see that there is a datamodel id and an instance uri. 
     54 
     55''Issue'': BNL is confused, should we expect the datamodel id be 
     56the uri of the the csml document? (e.g. equivalent in content 
     57to badc.nerc.ac.uk:CSML:blah) and the uri to be a service binding 
     58to that instance, e.g. http://badchost/dX?uri=badc.nerc.ac.uk:CSML:blah) 
     59 
     60Note that the granulecoverage is the spatio-temporal bounding box, it doesn't cover 
     61the sort of averaging (if any used), more of that later. 
     62 
     63All the interesting stuff is in the dgParameterSummary ... 
     64 
     65[[Image(dgParameterSummary.jpg)]] 
     66 
     67Looking through this we can see the  
     68 
     69 * IsOutput variable (boolean). ''BNL can't really see the point of this. KON did explain, 
     70but this needs revisiting'' 
     71 * The next thing is a choice of four items, only one of which should appear for any parameter. Either the value, or the range of values, or an enumeration list of the  
     72value types, or a compound group should appear.   
     73'' It needs to be a choice as to whether this thing exists and it needs a name. We also need Roy to give us a few practical examples of how the parameter group is intended to work '' 
     74 * The other elements are rather obvious, but ... 
     75   * Note that we would expect to use the dgStdParameterMeasured variable to encode 
     76both the phenomenon name and the cell bounds (so we get the averaging information  
     77here). ''Can we promote something useful from the CF cell methods?'' 
     78 * I suppose we imagine a granule of consisting of multiple phenomena with multiple feature types, but we would expect that any one phenomenon in one granule to have one feature type (''Andrew/Dominic?''). In which case the feature type name and the feature type catalogue from which it is governed should also be encoded per parameter. 
     79 
     80Now we have this information at the granule level, how much of it should be summarised up at the data entity level by the moles creator? (''We would need tools to do this!'') 
     81 
     82 
     83 
     84 
     85 
     86 
     87 
     88 
     89 
     90 
     91 
     92 
     93 
     94 
    4995The overall material includes the following two elements: 
    5096 
     
    5399 
    54100and the granule is 
    55  
    56 [[Image(dgDataGranule.jpg)]] 
    57101 
    58102 
     
    71115 
    72116 
     117