lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [spatial] Cartesian "Tiers" nomenclature
Date Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:00:01 GMT

On Dec 29, 2009, at 2:14 PM, patrick o'leary wrote:

>> 
>> You probably mean that to be derogatory, but it's related and not in a bad
>> way.  This is about effective communication, which marketing people
>> understand.
> 
> 
> Hence the term spatial-luence, or as it was originally called locallucene-
> We are discussing an internal component, where folks want to change the name
> of the methodology of how it works.
> 
> To me it's like renaming the crank shaft in a car to the Spinning Wheel
> Turner.
> 


I totally understand where cartesian tier comes from and I get the math and all the explanation.
 It's a perfectly reasonable name and  I don't have anything against it as far as the meaning
it invokes.  My only issue is that I can't find a single reference to that phrase outside
of Local Lucene whereas I can find lots of references to the concept under names like: map
tiles, map grids, spatial tiles, or just plain tiles/grids.  That doesn't mean cartesian tiers
isn't a better description and that if Lucene was the first to implement such a thing we wouldn't
even be having this conversation.  But the fact is, we're not the first and it appears to
me like the majority of people out their use grid/tiles to describe this concept, for better
or worse.
Mime
View raw message