POST
|
Its a good work around, but it assumes that one will not be working in the same area again. If I update or add new features to Area A and mark exceptions accordingly within Area A, I'd like those exceptions to be pushed up to the parent and be able to replicated to a second child version, so, should there be additional future edits in Area A or areas overlapping Area A, I can build another second child off of the parent and perform a QC of Area A (or area overlapping Area A), and I won't have to revisit the exceptions I previously marked within Area A under the first child.
... View more
10-12-2017
04:34 PM
|
0
|
1
|
666
|
POST
|
Hi, I'm working with data on an enterprise database. My organizations authoritative data is stored and managed on an SDE and versioning is enabled. As part of our workflow, any required edits to the SDE (e.g., additions, updates or deletions of the data) are performed through a version of the SDE (child of the parent SDE) and QCed before it is pushed up and posted to the SDE. We are implementing Data Reviewer batch checks as part of our QC. Often, we encounter errors that are exceptions and are marked as such. Because of the time spent on investigating the errors, we would like for Data Reviewer not to reflag the same errors that we have already marked as an exception (i.e., filter out duplicates). This does not appear to be a problem if we are working in same version that the error was produced under, but if I post my version edits to the SDE (the parent), and rerun the same batch checks in the parent version, the same error that was marked as an exception under the child version will flag again into the Reviewer table. I understand this is because the duplicate filtering is based on several fields that include the Parameter field, which stores the database version the checks were run on. How would I be able to exclude the version name in the parameters field or to exclude the parameters field all together in the filtering of duplicates so that the error doesn't again flag in either child or parent version.
... View more
10-05-2017
06:34 PM
|
1
|
4
|
995
|
POST
|
Hi Melita. When you said "There's no set epoch/realization on the WGS 1984 definition", do you mean that if I bring in data that is WGS84 (G1762) epoch 2005.0 equivalent with ITRF08 and WGS84 (G1150) epoch 2001.0 equivalent to ITRF 00 into the same ArcGIS data frame with the frame projection as GCS_WGS_1984 (EPSG 4326), I would need no transformation between the two data sets? Is the difference between the two epochs (2001.0 and 2005.0) insignificant enough we can consider them the same?
... View more
03-02-2017
06:53 PM
|
0
|
2
|
2173
|
Title | Kudos | Posted |
---|---|---|
1 | 10-05-2017 06:34 PM |
Online Status |
Offline
|
Date Last Visited |
05-05-2022
11:33 PM
|