Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ryantxu@gmail.com designates
 74.125.92.25 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=N4XfiAEaFj5ykyFL8LwMjBp4SR05Bt6RUJUxJxAh1300YQk2Bnp8V7104lvsCioL/y
         Q+KQIqOoQTnXxjoNF+ytn/G9WA8AZjdeOv/pL8p0a6m9V3A9kooslSHwFD3mVLXkBtUV
         oC1rKRnRtoiPuqIY5qZyP1ZJES0TWhGsUML04=
Message-Id: <778FAFB7-CF06-4DA8-8460-3CE19C42FB0F@gmail.com>
From: Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <f18c9dde0912280922r5d7bfc24ra0fa4637da10780b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: [spatial] Cartesian "Tiers" nomenclature
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:49:24 -0500
References: <B860EB0F-04CC-4B6C-953B-DFFCA4331B47@apache.org>
 <f18c9dde0912280922r5d7bfc24ra0fa4637da10780b@mail.gmail.com>

I like "tile" best -- this has a direct mapping to common map caching  
systems (google/bing/tms/WorldWind)

'Grid' is also good.  In OpenLayers, 'grid' is the parent, and tile  
based variations extend 'grid'.

"Tier" is interesting since it implies various levels, but i think  
using a more common term is better for a wider audience.

"Cartesian"?  The common tiling schemes are all cartesian (planar),  
however i think much of the same mechanics can be used to to tile  
spherical space.  Consider something like: HEALPix  http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/

Uwe mentioned "Quad Tree or Trie" -- the big difference I see is that  
tiles or grids have sizes that are defined independent of the data.   
Quadtree, RTree, etc typically resize themselves as data is added.

I like "Tile", "TilePlotter", "FindBestTile", etc best.  Grid also  
works, but seems to refer to the whole system rather then the cell.

ryan


On Dec 28, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote:

> I would extremely prefer a common well know name instead of Cartensian
> tiers. While the API is still in flux changing the name is not that
> much of a deal either. Either grid or tiles is fine for me though
> while I would prefer the most common of the two - grid seems to be the
> better choice though. Yet, should we stick to Cartesian?!
>
> simon
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Grant Ingersoll  
> <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>> As some of you may know, I've been working pretty heavily on  
>> spatial stuff lately.  One of the things that has bothered me for a  
>> while is the use of the terminology: cartesian tiers.  The thing  
>> is, I can't find any reference to such a thing in any place other  
>> than Local Lucene and Patrick's white paper on it.  Most GIS  
>> systems seem to either talk about grids or tiles when describing  
>> this capability.
>>
>> Do you think it is worth a name change?  This is about to get baked  
>> into Solr and I would really prefer we choose names that the rest  
>> of the world seems to understand.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Grant