Hi, 2009/6/12 Michael Barton <michael.bar...@asu.edu>:
[...] > I probably shouldn't add more, but I will anyway. > > I like calling vector and raster files maps. It is really easy for users to > understand what these files are. Maps can be added to display layers (i.e., > like layers in a CAD or drawing package) for display and visualization. that can be also confusing, data can be stored e.g. in the database as PostGIS tables - vector and also raster data (see wktraster) instead of files. I would hesitate to use "files" in this connection. Also "files maps" seems to be strange to me - I still see "map" as something related to the cartography. I would call it "data layers". > The features that are currently called vector "layers" really serve a > database function. Given that, my preference is that they be called > something in database jargon that is also very easily recognizable. AFAIK, > the term "layer" is not a term commonly used for DBMS files and functions. > The closest common term for what our "layer" does is a key field. Whether or > not the key field is use to connect the vector to an attribute table, that > is what it is good for ultimately. So that is why I favor some version of > "key" for this feature. It's not always related to the database function, but you are right in the most cases it is. I still see "something-set" as good choice, because it's grouping cats/keys/ids to the set. E.g. if we use 'keyset', then we should call 'cat' as 'key'. Note that we already use 'feature id' for different meaning - every feature has unique fid. Martin -- Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
