[GRASS-dev] terminology issues in grass7

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

2009/6/12 Michael Barton <michael.barton at asu.edu>:

[...]

> 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 display and visualization.

that can be also confusing, data can be stored e.g. in the database as
PostGIS tables - vector and also raster data (see wktraster) instead
of files. I would hesitate to use "files" in this connection. Also
"files maps" seems to be strange to me - I still see "map" as
something related to the cartography. I would call it "data layers".

> The features that are currently called vector "layers" really serve a
> database function. Given that, my preference is that they be called
> something in database jargon that is also very easily recognizable. AFAIK,
> the term "layer" is not a term commonly used for DBMS files and functions.
> The closest common term for what our "layer" does is a key field. Whether or
> not the key field is use to connect the vector to an attribute table, that
> is what it is good for ultimately. So that is why I favor some version of
> "key" for this feature.

It's not always related to the database function, but you are right in
the most cases it is. I still see "something-set" as good choice,
because it's grouping cats/keys/ids to the set. E.g. if we use
'keyset', then we should call 'cat' as 'key'. Note that we already use
'feature id' for different meaning - every feature has unique fid.

Martin

-- 
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa