[postgis-users] Rasters - fields

[Josh@oklieb]

This is analogous to the concept of a coverage, which is already  
reasonably well defined for spatial data.

On Sep 30, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Havard Tveite wrote:

> Just to add to the raster confusion :-)
>
> I think a "field" datatype would be more useful than a
> raster data type.  A field is a function from a (spatial)
> domain into some other domain (for instance a scalar -
> scalar field).  Examples of phenomena that are best
> represented as fields (continuously varying phenomena):
> Precipitation, temperature, terrain height, radiance, ...
>
> A field could be defined over 1, 2, 3 or more dimensions.
> A field should be a "black box" datatype, having only a
> set of operations/operators.
> The field datatype could (internally) be represented
> using a raster, a TIN, or ...
>
> Quite a challenge to define and implement!  Something for
> PostGIS 10.0 ?
>
> For examples of operations on fields, see:
> Andrej Vckovski: "Interoperable and Distributed Processing
> in GIS", Taylor & Francis, 1998.
>
> -- 
> Håvard Tveite
> Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, UMB
> Drøbakveien 14, POBox 5003, N-1432 Ås, NORWAY
> Phone: +47 64965483 Fax: +47 64965401 http://www.umb.no/imt
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>