It's great that there's such a sudden burst of energy to improve spatial in both Solr and Lucene! Isn't this concept the same as "trie" (for Lucene's numeric fields), but in 2D not 1D? If so, I think "tiles" doesn't convey that they recursively subdivide. Also: why does this notion even need naming so badly? Why does this concept "leak" out of the abstraction? Shouldn't this (cartesian tier, cartesian tier plotter) all be "under the hood"? I make a SpatialField, I index it, I can then make SpatialShapeQuery, a SpatialDistanceSort, etc.? Ie, "trie" is known within Lucene, but doesn't leak out -- the outside world knows it as "Numeric*". Trie is an implementation detail, inside Lucene. (NOTE: I only know just enough about spatial to be dangerous...) Mike On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:49 AM, patrick o'leary wrote: > Ah the language of math is the ultimate lingua franca - > Nice ! > > When you look at the coordinates entity from KML, ask why are the lat / > longs reversed to long/ lat? > Answer because the folks working on the display thought in terms of *display > not GIS*, the point is over Y degrees of longitude and down X degrees of > latitude. > > But again that's not a convention used outside a little part of GeoTools or > KML, GML / GeoRSS are again just the regular lat,long (NS,EW), or projected > EPSG or other standard projections in  OGC 05-011. > To my knowledge google are the only real pushers of (EW,NS) these days. > > So what does this diatribe mean? We're kind of at the bleeding edge of > defining the standard, hence the difficulty of finding data on it. > This is one reason why locallucene and localsolr became popular, it solved a > problem simply. > > Doc's about it exist on gissearch.com > dzone are doing articles on it > http://java.dzone.com/articles/spatial-search-hibernate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+javalobby%2Ffrontpage+%28Javalobby+%2F+Java+Zone%29 > > Locallucene in google has over 8,000 results > http://www.google.com/search?q=locallucene > > Localsolr has over 4,000 results > http://www.google.com/search?q=localsolr > > I've seen and help with installations all over the place, heck even codehaus > use it, as do folks on github with geonames db. > I see named it mathematically & scientifically correct, and  gaining enough > traction and popularity to start becoming part of the standard, not just > duplicating one. > > I can't honestly see how a refactoring is bringing anything positive to > this, when there isn't a good standard out there yet. > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > >> Hi Patrick, >> >> Interesting. It seems like there is a precedent already in the Local Lucene >> and Local SOLR packages that define "CartesianTier" as lingua franca. >> >> Like I said in an earlier email it depends on who you talk to regarding the >> preference of what to call these Tiles/Grids/Tiers, etc., and that seems to >> be further evidenced by your research. >> >> I for one donąt really have a preference but precedent matters to me and if >> Tiers have been used to date then there should be strong consideration to >> use that nomenclature and +1 from me. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> On 12/28/09 9:25 PM, "patrick o'leary" wrote: >> >> > So trying no to drag this out, the most frequent generic term used in GIS >> > software is SRID >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRID >> > >> > Again this provides just a basic nomenclature for the high level element, >> > somewhat the blackbird of objects rather than the defining the magpie >> (sorry >> > for the CS 101 reference) >> > >> > But it should show that every implementation is unique in some format. >> > Perhaps as unique as CartesianTier's ( sorry Ted ! ) >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:26 PM, patrick o'leary >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hmm, depends, tiles indicate to me a direct correlation between the id >> and >> >> a map tile, which will depend upon using the right projection >> >> with the cartesian plotter >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Grant Ingersoll > >wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> On Dec 28, 2009, at 4:19 PM, patrick o'leary wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hmm, but when you say grid, to me that's just a bunch of regularly >> >>> spaced >> >>>> lines.. >> >>> >> >>> Yeah, I hear you.  I chose spatial tiles for the Solr patch, but >> spatial >> >>> grid would work too.  Or map tiles/map grids.  That anchors it into the >> >>> spatial world, since we're calling Lucene's spatial contrib/spatial and >> >>> Solr's Solr Spatial. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Grant Ingersoll > >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Dec 28, 2009, at 3:51 PM, patrick o'leary wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> So Grant here's the deal behind the name. >> >>>>>> Cartesian because it's a simple x.y coordinate system >> >>>>>> Tier because there are multiple tiers, levels of resolution. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If you look at it closer: >> >>>>>> - To programmers there's a quadtree implementation >> >>>>>> - To web users who use maps these are grids / tiles. >> >>>>>> - To GIS experts this is a form of multi-resolution raster-ing. >> >>>>>> - To astrophysicists these are tiers. >> >>>>>> - To the MS folks I've talked to they have quad something or other. >> >>>>>> - To math folks Cartesian levels makes sense. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Can't make all the people happy all the time, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Right, but as far as I can tell (and I've only done, say an hour of >> >>>>> research), I can't find anyone who calls them Cartesian Tiers other >> >>> than us. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Personally, I think web users are the largest group (after all, >> aren't >> >>> we >> >>>>> all web users?) out there and therefore will be the most familiar >> with >> >>>>> either grid or tile.  FWIW, I have tentatively called the Solr >> >>> FieldType to >> >>>>> support this "SpatialTileField" as in it represents a tile in the >> >>> spatial >> >>>>> sense.  I'd be fine with SpatialGridField as well (GridField seems a >> >>> bit too >> >>>>> generic). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Senior Computer Scientist >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 >> Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov >> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >