Dear Ann,
I think having a "finish" button is the ulitimate thing that all of us
looking for in a software!. Unfourtunately it is not possible. There are far
too many issues regarding a good kriging operation that prevents you from
trusting a nice package like "Geostatistical Analyst" in ArcGIS. The
evidence is that you cant find two geostatistical package that their resutl
is the same (I know this is a big statement but I have seen this for a
couple of softwares!). I cant say the surface that is generated by ArcGIS is
not accurate but it bothers me to not know what happens beneath the program
when it fits the variogram and calculates the matrices for kriging and more
importantly a "routine" that you mentioned will not work for all the data.
So personaly I will go for the chors of GeoR or Gstat instead of using the
ArcGIS. Though it is not complete and I have to admit that I have a lot of
problem adapting to it.
Ebrahim

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anne Ghisla Insubriae <
a.ghisla@studenti.uninsubria.it> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ebrahim Jahanshiri a écrit:
> > Dear Anne,
>
> Ebrahim,
>
> > Thanks for the enquiry. I think we should have done this long before. I
> > havent done any geostatistics with GRASS but I did alot in ArcGIS and
> also
> > in R (variography). I have to tell you that ArcGIS is for those who want
> to
> > have a surface only by just clicking on "finish" button trought its
> > powerfull interface. That is, it does not provide a good scientific
> > backgroud for you to check the procedure. for example how it fitted the
> > variogram model or how exactly it does the "validation". That is why the
> > "Geostatistical package" objects or classes are not available for the
> > programmers to program with (there is a kriging in "Spatial analyst"
> package
> > though that its object is programmable and I personally did some with it.
> > but it lacks the variogram modeling). I think they are still working on
> it.
> > In short I dont recommend ArcGIS for the so called scientific kriging.
>
> I was afraid of this. Therefore I guess an interface with too many
> mandatory options would be considered overcomplicated.
> There should be as more options as needed for a flexible calculations,
> and also proper defaults to clik on Ok and get an acceptable result.
> What do you think about this solution?
>
> > In
> > the other hand R is very powerfull in that it gives you freedom to do
> your
> > own style through coding. I worked with "GeoR" pakcage and it is pretty
> nice
> > both in terms of variography and kriging. There are other package like
> > "Gstat" that I havent worked with but have good qualities. GeoR
> implements
> > the so called "model based geostatistics" which is the application of
> > bayesian statististics to the geostistics I guess and it is quite new.
>
> I'm presently having a look at both geoR and gstat, and also the wrapper
> package automap.
> I guess that the first users of the new module would be already familiar
> with R and GRASS, so their feedback about most used functions is very
> important.
>
> > I hope these comments were helpful and please let me know if you need any
> > further explanation from me,
>
> Very helpful, thank you very much!
>
> > Ebrahim
> >
> best regards,
> Anne
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkoYOZUACgkQrgxAvFOwDdgNjgCfZEFAIMpX5zeZ/OdraSfbqcRJ
> G7oAnRwIUfGvmTgOj3GSspTN/Lht0UG7
> =KTO6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



-- 
Ebrahim

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

