GREAT-ER Class Concept

[Frank Koormann]

Dear Frederik, 

thank you very much for your comments!

* Frederik Verdonck <frederik.verdonck at euras.be> [040824 08:49]:
> Not sure if I understand your question correctly but letting the user
> decide between "class parameters" and "environmental parameters" may not
> be straightforward as the user will probably not know what you mean with
> "class parameters" and "environmental parameters". You may want to use
> more TGD-wording as "site-specific" and "generic" or "local" and
> "regional" parameters.

Applying more common names for the different concepts is a good point.
However, we will have to select this carefully: The class concept is
positioned somewhere between "site-specific" and "generic". You classify 
river (stretches) like brook, mountain stream or large river. 
N.B.: The flow, flow velocity, length etc is never class based but
always site-specific!

> I would even argue it may be helpful to encourage/guide the user to use
> distinct parameter sets (if sensitive to PEC) for different types of
> stretches in a catchment (if allowed by data availability) because what
> is the added-value of using a GIS-system if no georeferenced data are
> inputted?

Checking the classes currently stored in GREAT-ER show that there only 
a default river and a default lake class are defined which don't 
differ much. My experience from preparing new catchments is that
the required data is rarely available for specific stretches.
 
Maybe a task for a master thesis to define more different classes :)
 
> Just some thoughts, hope this helps,

Yes, thanks again. I will think about naming. 

Best regards,

        Frank

-- 
Frank Koormann                             <frank.koormann at intevation.de>
 Professional Service around Free Software       (http://intevation.net/)
 FreeGIS Project                                 (http://freegis.org/)