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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

