Hi all, On 6 Oct 2005 at 17:08, Vitali Diatchkov wrote:
> Seems we are talking about one thing. That is good! Definitely. We're talking about the same thing, just with different words and perhaps focus. But we've got a lot of ideas and options to develop them! As you said, and I do agree, we should think of a Topology Framework making abstraction from the underlying data / metadata model. > Topology deals with geometries. But geometry can be just attribute of > anything. So any entity that is somehow bound to geometry (or geometry > is bound to entity) begins to be an entity for topological analysis. > We can build TDM from set of geometries. OK. We have features. Do > features have geometry as an attribute? Yes, they do. OK. We can build > TDM from features.... > > Here WAS misunderstanding. Am I right...? I think you are right. :o) I'd add that you can build Topology solely from Geometries, but the most useful uses (applications) of Topology are with Features (or something attached to the userData of a Geometry). Maybe we should be able to navigate in the topology model either from a plain geometric perspective, or from a "feature" perspective. Ok, I'm going to start a wiki page on the Topology Framework. Just an empty home in which we could put all the considerations done up to now, our use cases and so on. Cheers Sig ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
