Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of MolesDiscussion


Ignore:
Timestamp:
17/07/06 15:57:16 (13 years ago)
Author:
lawrence
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • MolesDiscussion

    v4 v5  
    3030 
    3131Issue CH2: The Online Reference type  
     32 
    3233[[Image(dgOnlineReferenceType.png)]] 
     34 
    3335should evolve towards something that exploits xlink, so that we can indicate whether 
    3436one expects to insert the linked object, point to the linked object, or render the remote object, and insert it ... 
     
    6365All the interesting stuff is in the dgParameterSummary ... 
    6466 
    65 [[Image(dgParameterSummary.jpg)]] 
     67[[Image(dgParameterType.jpg)]] 
    6668 
    6769Looking through this we can see the  
    6870 
    69  * IsOutput variable (boolean). ''BNL can't really see the point of this. KON did explain, 
    70 but 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  
    72 value 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 '' 
     71 * IsOutput variable (boolean). ''BNL can't really see the point of this. KON did explain, but this needs revisiting'' 
     72 * 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  value types, or a compound group should appear.   '' 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 '' 
    7473 * The other elements are rather obvious, but ... 
    75    * Note that we would expect to use the dgStdParameterMeasured variable to encode 
    76 both the phenomenon name and the cell bounds (so we get the averaging information  
    77 here). ''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. 
     74   * Note that we would expect to use the dgStdParameterMeasured variable to encode both the phenomenon name and the cell bounds (so we get the averaging information  here). ''Can we promote something useful from the CF cell methods?'' 
     75 * 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. However, one might argue that the assumption might be violated, and in any case, at this point the user might be pointed to the WFS level. ''It would certainly be simpler, and possibly more useful to generate a list of feature types present in the granule (along with their FTC 
     76antecedents).'' 
    7977 
    8078Now 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!'') 
    8179 
     80The overall material includes the following data summary: 
    8281 
     82[[Image(DataEntityGeneral2.jpg)]] 
    8383 
     84It is a moot question as to how much of this needs to be replicated from the granule content.  
     85 * BNL would argue that the spatio-temporal coverage should be the *union* of the  
     86granule coverages (''need a tool to produce this''). 
     87 * The parameter coverage is a bit more complicated, because now we think we could have, 
     88for example, temperature monthly means and temperature annual means in the granules. I think the only thing that makes sense is to aggregate the granule parameter summaries. ''In which case why bother? We can parse the granule content.'' 
     89 * ''There ought however to be a consolidated lists of feature types present ... as well'' 
     90 * The other elements seem appropriate. 
    8491 
    85  
    86  
    87  
    88  
    89  
    90  
    91  
    92  
    93  
    94  
    95 The overall material includes the following two elements: 
     92Now looking at the other two elements in the data entity which are relevant: 
    9693 
    9794[[Image(DataEntityGeneral1.jpg)]] 
    98 [[Image(DataEntityGeneral2.jpg)]] 
    99  
    100 and the granule is 
    10195 
    10296 
     
    116110 
    117111 
     112 
     113