[GRASS-dev] terminology issues in grass7

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

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

[...]

> From this perspective, data layers seems sensible and I even talk about
> geospatial data when I teach GIS. I also understand the cartographic
> perspective that maps are the final, often paper, result of combining
> multiple geospatial data layers. Nonetheless, most users will find it less
> confusing if we just continue to call them maps--with the idea that we've

Which users? The users who I know are confused by "map" in the context
that is used in GRASS. I remember when I started to use GRASS as my
first GIS - I didn't understood why I should call raster file as
"map". Probably my feeling is too much cartographic one - map is some
kind of composition with given layout, decorations, text labels, etc.
When I display raster file/dataset/layer or whatever in GRASS, e.g.
'elevation' from spearfish location, it's not a map in my eyes. I
think that 'map' in this context is not right and whatever would be
better. Sorry probably to much radical this evening;-)

> moved maps from paper to digital media. Note that this was the original
> usage in one of the world's oldest GIS systems still in use (i.e., GRASS).
> And looking at the 1980's video that someone rediscovered, the parallels
> between paper maps and digital maps were made so that potential users could
> better understand a GIS. From a personal perspective, I really don't mind
> data layers at all. I just think that map is easer for most users to
> understand even if it seems somewhat inaccurate from a more technical
> perspective.

OK, anyway I still think that we should find more accurate term then
the current one. GRASS7 is good occasion (it takes time, and many
users will be confused for the short period).

Martin

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