Moritz Lennert writes:
On 17/06/09 14:58, Roger Miller wrote:
The "layer=" feature of the commands seems to me to be largely if not
entirely superfluous. The function that it performs can be duplicated
by "where="
This would mean mixing different types of objects into the same layer and
thu
On Jun 17, 2009, at 6:21 AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:58:44 -0600
From: Roger Miller
Subject: [GRASS-dev] terminology issues in grass7
To: "grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org"
Message-ID: <1245243524.4369.15.ca...@linux>
Content-Type: text/pl
Moritz Lennert wrote:
>
> Just to make this more visual:
>
> d.vect testlayers2 layer=1 fcol=green
> d.vect testlayers2 layer=2 fcol=red icon=basic/circle size=10
> d.vect testlayers2 layer=3 col=blue width=5 type=line
>
> giving you
>
> http://geog-pc40.ulb.ac.be/grass/misc/layer_example.png
>
> T
On 17/06/09 14:58, Roger Miller wrote:
The "layer=" feature of the commands seems to me to be largely if not
entirely superfluous. The function that it performs can be duplicated
by "where="
This would mean mixing different types of objects into the same layer
and thus the same attribute tab
Folks,
The terminology discussion has evolved into a discussion on usage.
That's constructive but it really doesn't do much to solve the initial
problem.
I noticed that most of the participants in the discussion are using the
term "layer" frequently and usually without problems in agreeing to its
Maciej Sieczka wrote:
>
> Yeah well I guess I said all I wanted to. I bet everybody's going to be
> glad if I don't interfere anymore :).
Not as far as I am concerned. You emphasize the difference between
shapefiles and GRASS layers, I emphasize the similarity between GRASS
layers and shapefiles. I
> The main difference to e.g. several shapefiles imported as different
> layers into one GRASS vector is that GRASS builds and maintains
> topology for all geometry objects in all shapefiles combined.
probably VMap0/Digital Chart of the World data is a better example than
shapefiles. when you imp
Markus GRASS pisze:
Maciej Sieczka wrote:
GRASS vector layers most of the time have common geometry or
"subject", OGR layers not necessarily. E.g. shapefiles in a
directory don't need to have anything in common.
Same for GRASS vector layers, as long as it's in the same projection
and topol
Maciej Sieczka wrote:
> Markus GRASS pisze:
>> Hamish wrote:
>
>>> (if it must be renamed, what's was wrong with going back to
>>> "field"?) [I remember Radim explained on-list why that was changed
>>> when it became "layer", ... need to dig out that thread]
>
>> Here are two interesting threads [
Markus GRASS pisze:
Hamish wrote:
(if it must be renamed, what's was wrong with going back to
"field"?) [I remember Radim explained on-list why that was changed
when it became "layer", ... need to dig out that thread]
Here are two interesting threads [1,2], the same discussion about
field
Hamish wrote:
> (if it must be renamed, what's was wrong with going back to "field"?)
> [I remember Radim explained on-list why that was changed when it
>became "layer", ... need to dig out that thread]
>
Here are two interesting threads [1,2], the same discussion about
field/layer betwe
Markus M wrote:
> I know it's not a good idea at this stage of the discussion to
> come up with yet another word to replace layer,
sure why not. might as well be now..
> but how about subset? Because by choosing a vector "layer" you
> effectively select a subset of geometry objects in the vecto
Paul Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Hamish wrote:
>
>
>> as for vector layer renaming, I'd continue on about how an abstract idea
>> can be much better than an overly mechanical description if the analogy
>> is just right
>
> Perhaps a more abstract term that generalises the concepts of both
>
Martin, you are not being radical at all - this really needs
to be resolved and we have people with many different backgrounds here,
so it is not surprising that there are differences in how terminology
is understood.
So here are few of my comments:
Regarding the term map versus layer, I have en
I've not responded on-list for a while now, but this thread touches on
something that has bothered me for a while.
I'm an advanced user, but I'm still using 6.3. Have subsequent releases
changed the use of "layer" in 6.0 through 6.3? I recall that in those
cases, a "layer" in the vector apps ref
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Hamish wrote:
As Michael mentioned, any difference in opinion probably arises from the
native English speakers vs. not. Whereas the non-native speakers take a
much more literal view of the word than the native speakers would. I
would expect native speakers to consider the wo
look, the "maps in MAPSETs" concept has been successfully used by GRASS
for more than 20 years, and indeed they are mentioned in the original
Fort Hood specification from 1983. I'm willing to tweak it a bit, but
not prepared to abandon that tradition.
As Michael mentioned, any difference in opin
On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi,
2009/6/12 Michael Barton :
[...]
From this perspective, data layers seems sensible and I even talk
about
geospatial data when I teach GIS. I also understand the cartographic
perspective that maps are the final, often paper, result of c
Hi,
2009/6/12 Michael Barton :
[...]
> From this perspective, data layers seems sensible and I even talk about
> geospatial data when I teach GIS. I also understand the cartographic
> perspective that maps are the final, often paper, result of combining
> multiple geospatial data layers. Nonethe
Hi Martin,
See below.
On Jun 12, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi,
2009/6/12 Michael Barton :
[...]
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
Hi,
2009/6/12 Michael Barton :
[...]
> 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 di
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:59 AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote:
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:36:18 +0200
From: Maciej Sieczka
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [GRASS-dev] terminology issues in
grass7
To: Micha Silver
Cc: OSGeo Discussions , grass-dev list
, Helena
Micha Silver pisze:
Martin Landa wrote:
map -> layer (Map Layer)
Yes, that sounds right to me. A map in other GIS context is the final
product of many overlapping "layers". I'd like to see that change
propogated to both raster and vector.
I'm all for this. A "map" is a graphic representa
Hamish:
> >> map -> layer (Map Layer)
> >> layer -> catset (Category Set)
> > to be honest, I'm not a fan of either.
> >
> > map -> layer: no need for change; layer is less meaningful
> > in this context
> > (my POV is not from the GUI layer-list perspective, so the
> > metaphor makes little s
Hi,
Hi,
2009/6/11 Hamish :
[...]
>> map -> layer (Map Layer)
>> layer -> catset (Category Set)
> to be honest, I'm not a fan of either.
>
> map -> layer: no need for change; layer is less meaningful in this context
> (my POV is not from the GUI layer-list perspective, so the metaphor makes
>
Martin:
> to summarize, is there any real objections to change
> terminology in GRASS7
>
> map -> layer (Map Layer)
> layer -> catset (Category Set)
to be honest, I'm not a fan of either.
map -> layer: no need for change; layer is less meaningful in this context
(my POV is not from the GUI l
Hi,
2009/5/14 Martin Landa :
[...]
> I agree, anyway I wonder in which period we can reach some consensus
> and change the terminology in GRASS7...
to summarize, is there any real objections to change terminology in GRASS7
map -> layer (Map Layer)
layer -> catset (Category Set)
Then I would v
Hi,
2009/4/27 Helena Mitasova :
> I am wondering whether this should be discussed at osgeo level to make sure
> that we have at least some consistency in terminology used in OSGeo software
> stack.
I agree, anyway I wonder in which period we can reach some consensus
and change the terminology in
According to the Open Geospatial Consortium, there are some ISO
standards [1]. Of particular interest may be
- ISO/IEC 13249-3:2003, Information technology — Database languages —
SQL multimedia and application packages — Part 3: Spatial
- ISO 19107:2003, Geographic information ― Spatial schema
I added my 2cents worth to the WIKI
Michael
C. Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
Director of Graduate Studies
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University
Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671
www:
On
I am wondering whether this should be discussed at osgeo level to
make sure
that we have at least some consistency in terminology used in OSGeo
software stack.
I checked some on-line GIS terminology and category is mostly used in
a different
context so I am curious what are the current vect
Hi,
2008/8/11 Maciej Sieczka :
[...]
> (A "table" is an object in the database that stores the given "layer"'s
> attributes, and the "table" and "layer"'s geometrical features are
> linked using "key column" in which the "categories" are stored inside
> the "table".)
>
> Regarding Moritz's remar
On Monday 11 August 2008, Paul Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
> > Paul Kelly pisze:
> >> I think though, that connecting multiple layers to different tables is
> >> the main application for layers? Are they much use for anything else? In
> >> which case, calling them tabl
There are 2 issues being discussed here. I'll guess I'll go with the
flow, however, and comment on both
On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
Paul Kelly pisze:
I think though, that connecting multiple layers to different
tables is the
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
Paul Kelly pisze:
I think though, that connecting multiple layers to different tables is the
main application for layers? Are they much use for anything else? In which
case, calling them tables makes things clearer. Perhaps even table would be
enoug
On Monday 11 August 2008, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
> Paul Kelly pisze:
> > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Moritz Lennert wrote:
> >> Well, to be absolutely precise, you don't need linked attribute tables
> >> to have multiple layers, so I'm not sure that reducing the layer
> >> concept to table links is really
Paul Kelly pisze:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Moritz Lennert wrote:
Well, to be absolutely precise, you don't need linked attribute tables
to have multiple layers, so I'm not sure that reducing the layer
concept to table links is really 100% correct.
I think though, that connecting multiple layers
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Moritz Lennert wrote:
May I suggest "table link" in place of the current "layer" then? So each
vector map can have multilpe "table links", and each "table" can have
it's own "key column".
This sounds reasonable to me too. It clearly describes what the feature
does.
We
On 10/08/08 17:25, Michael Barton wrote:
On Aug 9, 2008, at 2:54 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:45:27 +0200
From: Maciej Sieczka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] terminology issues in grass7
To: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Cc: Martin Landa <[
On Aug 9, 2008, at 2:54 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:45:27 +0200
From: Maciej Sieczka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] terminology issues in grass7
To: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Cc: Martin Landa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Bart
Martin Landa pisze:
2008/8/9 Maciej Sieczka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In GRASS there is already a term "key column" (the column that links the
category number with the table row). Since terms "field" and "column"
are sometimes used interchangeably, and term "key column" is already a
part of GRASS t
Hi,
2008/8/9 Maciej Sieczka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In GRASS there is already a term "key column" (the column that links the
> category number with the table row). Since terms "field" and "column"
> are sometimes used interchangeably, and term "key column" is already a
> part of GRASS terminology,
Michael Barton pisze:
I agree with changing map to layers and using map to refer to the
composited group of layers.
Sounds alright to me as well.
However, I disagree with using "field number" for the features that are
now called "layers" in vectors. These are "key fields" or "keys" in
stand
Hi,
2008/8/8 Michael Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> However, I disagree with using "field number" for the features that are now
> called "layers" in vectors. These are "key fields" or "keys" in standard
> DBMS terminology for linking the vector table with the attribute table. I
> propose using "key
On Aug 8, 2008, at 9:00 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:27:33 +0300
From: Wolf Bergenheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] terminology issues in grass7
To: Martin Landa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: GRASS developers list
Message-ID: <[EMAI
Hi,
2008/8/8 Wolf Bergenheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> GRASS is basically layer-based GIS, in grass6 we call layers as maps,
>> e.g. raster map. I would suggest to use in grass7 'layer' instead
>>
>> * raster layer
>> * 3d raster layer
>> * vector layer
>>
>> 'Map' could be used for composition of l
On 07.08.2008 20:22, Martin Landa wrote:
GRASS is basically layer-based GIS, in grass6 we call layers as maps,
e.g. raster map. I would suggest to use in grass7 'layer' instead
* raster layer
* 3d raster layer
* vector layer
'Map' could be used for composition of layers. And to rename all the
Hi all,
I am raising again (at the end not so much important point)
suggestions to change terminology in grass7.
GRASS is basically layer-based GIS, in grass6 we call layers as maps,
e.g. raster map. I would suggest to use in grass7 'layer' instead
* raster layer
* 3d raster layer
* vector layer
48 matches
Mail list logo
