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: [email protected]
Cc: Martin Landa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Barton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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
standard DBMS terminology for linking the vector table with the
attribute table. I propose using "key" or "keyfield".
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, using "keyfield" for something different
will
lead to confussion.
"I don't think this is official", but the cat field certainly IS a key
field to link vectors and attribute tables--more so than layers. So I
agree that this would be confusing.
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.
Michael
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
