Hello,
Darrell writes:
That's not necessarily bad, but is it what is needed at this
point in GRASS' development? Has the time come to extend this
part of the database to handle data in multi-dimensions?
and Helena replies:
And my opinion is, that if we don't go to at least 3D
and if we don't support time series, GRASS will loose its
position as a leading GIS for Environmental Modeling
and become obsolete.
I totally agree with Helena. It's clear that every component of
landscape is 3-dimensional and therefore its modeling should be
done in 3 geometric dimensions. Only relief, as a contact area
among components, is a 2-dimensional surface. Current 2D modeling
within GRASS assume only a horizontal movement (processes, interrelations).
I think this leads to too much simplified results especially in large-scale
(small area) studies.
Mark Line writes:
I'm not sure I agree with this conceptual standpoint. What sites have in
common _minimally_ is their reference to a position on the spheroid.
Yes, but every position on/in/above the Earth has also its distance
from the Earth's center. So _minimally_ should be defined in 3D.
Dynamic modeling inevitably requires time. Therefore I like
David's idea:
>
>How about a format like:
><easting>|<northing>|[z|[d4|]...][#category_int] [attr_text OR %flt[%flt]...]
I have only one question. Is it worth to think about a transformation of
GRASS to a 3D/4D (or multidimensional) modeling tool (GIS) when I saw
a tough fight for "floating point"? Or to start from scratch...?
Regards,
Jaro
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaro Hofierka
Dept. of Cartography, Geoinformatics & Rem. Sensing
Comenius University
842 15 Bratislava E-mail: hofierka@devin.fns.uniba.sk
Slovakia hofierka@geoinfo.fns.uniba.sk
------------------------------------------------------------------------