Hi,
I would like to introduce possibility/decision of naming and choice of location for .xml metadata files.
With Margherita and Martin we agreed:
To create new folder ‘metadata’ in grass location:
path/to/location/metadata
naming:
for raster map:
cell_ + nameofmap +.xml
e.g cell_basin.xml
for vector map:
vector_ + nameofmap+ .xml
vector_route.xml
also prefix can be r_ and v_. What you think?
We decide to leave postfix in accordance with type of profile (basic, inspire) and hold just one metadata file.
Does that make sense?
Thank you
Matej
On 13 August 2014 15:28, Matej Krejci <matejkrejci@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Hi Matej
I would like to introduce possibility/decision of naming and choice of
location for .xml metadata files.
With Margherita and Martin we agreed:
To create new folder 'metadata' in grass location:
path/to/location/metadata
naming:
for raster map:
cell_ + nameofmap +.xml
e.g cell_basin.xml
for vector map:
vector_ + nameofmap+ .xml
vector_route.xml
also prefix can be r_ and v_. What you think?
We decide to leave postfix in accordance with type of profile (basic,
inspire) and hold just one metadata file.
Does that make sense?
I didn't try metadata tool yet but, the metadat are created
automatically by GRASS or the user have to create them?
If the answer is the first one I fully agree with your proposal
otherwise I'd leave the choice where save the metadata to the user...
Thank you
Matej
--
ciao
Luca
http://gis.cri.fmach.it/delucchi/
www.lucadelu.org
Matej,
Thank you for all of the hard work on this project! I would suggest going with r_ and v_ for simplicity.
Doug
···
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Matej Krejci <matejkrejci@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to introduce possibility/decision of naming and choice of location for .xml metadata files.
With Margherita and Martin we agreed:
To create new folder ‘metadata’ in grass location:
path/to/location/metadata
naming:
for raster map:
cell_ + nameofmap +.xml
e.g cell_basin.xml
for vector map:
vector_ + nameofmap+ .xml
vector_route.xml
also prefix can be r_ and v_. What you think?
We decide to leave postfix in accordance with type of profile (basic, inspire) and hold just one metadata file.
Does that make sense?
Thank you
Matej
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
–
Doug Newcomb
USFWS
Raleigh, NC
919-856-4520 ext. 14 doug_newcomb@fws.gov
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the Interior. Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats.
Hi,
2014-08-13 15:28 GMT+02:00 Matej Krejci <matejkrejci@gmail.com>:
To create new folder 'metadata' in grass location:
path/to/location/metadata
AFAIK it should be
path/to/location/mapset/metadata
Martin
--
Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
Hi Luca,
I didn't try metadata tool yet but, the metadat are created
automatically by GRASS or the user have to create them?
If the answer is the first one I fully agree with your proposal
otherwise I'd leave the choice where save the metadata to the user...
Metadata are created only by user. In editor is option to set working
directory. By default is the directory path/to/location/mapset/metadata. After
click on save button user is asked by dialog window to selecting directory
in any case. So it meets with your suggestion 
Thanks Matej
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Matej Krejci <matejkrejci@gmail.com> wrote:
path/to/location/mapset/metadata
What I'm nervous about is that putting things into directories using "by
(file) type" approach (cell/name, cellhd/name, cats/name, ...) rather then
"by object" approach (vector/name/*) is something we consider obsolete and
it is not used for vector. Also we are talking about changing raster to
follow the "by object" approach in the future.
But putting the metadata separately makes perfect sense because of possible
external location and because it is not so invasive to the current system.
I guess these are the same reasons why raster directory layout is what it
is. Moreover, even for vector, for attributes in particular, we are not
strictly keeping "by object" approach (and we cannot since we want to be
able to connect to one external storage).
So, I really don't know which approach is better. Maybe, it is really the
combination of both.
Vaclav