Re: Naming a concept

[Ginna Watts <sweep!gwatts -at- QUESTERCORP -dot- COM>]

> Date:          Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:38:27 -0400
> Reply-to:      John David Hickey <dataflux!FARABI.COM!jdavid>
> From:          John David Hickey <dataflux!FARABI.COM!jdavid>
> Organization:  Farabi Technology Corp.
> Subject:       Re: Naming a concept
> To:            dataflux!LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU!TECHWR-L

John David Hickey wrote:

(snip)
> that will appear on the globe. For instance, one instance of
the globe may
> contain highways and lakes. Another instance may contain glaciers and
> forrests. Yet another may contain both or neither of these. It's totally
> user defined. Each of these must be defined as separate and distinct
> <WhateverWordWeDecideOn>.

And  Bob Johnson added:
> Is there any reason you can't use the cartographic term:
> projection? I'm not sure that technically projection refers to the
> style of the map (such as the very common Mercator Projection), but
> I can't see why you couldn't adopt the term to your situation.

Yes there is a reason. Projection is a term used to identify a
specific mathematical interpretation of the map. (Eg the way it
handles curvature of the earth). Basically projection describes the
way in which a map area (which is obviously not a square on the
globe) is transformed into a square shape on paper. (That's a big
generalization.)

When I worked in mapping, we called rough groupings features
"themes". As in, the roads theme, the silviculture theme etc.

Ginna Watts - Technical Writer
Quester Tangent Corporation
gwatts -at- questercorp -dot- com
Sidney, BC