|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: GISList: RE: OGC and Interoperability :: How Far ? |
| Date: |
01/07/2003 11:20:53 AM |
| From: |
research |
|
|
Great Carl !
How do you like the idea of eliminating the managers altogether: guys
who make money out of pushing data formats that work with applications
developed by their cousins. I keep wondering how their past contribution
has been able to push OGC's cause any forward.
About "true interoperability" I expect OGC to know better: if you are
able to pull out one of those six year old definitions: not the current
interpretation. I can provide one after I get back from vacation.
About the interfaces: APIs and the rest: lets do keep working. At least
somebody keeps trying to do something about it. Something has definitely
been achieved. Lots more to do. Lets keep working: though without
the "managers".
Best Wishes
aarti
-----Original Message-----
From: <creediii@mindspring.com>
To: "Research@NucleusGIS.com" <research@nucleusgis.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:02:17 -0700
Subject: Re: GISList: RE: OGC and Interoperability :: How Far ?
> Dear Aarti -
>
> Thank you for the response. I do understand your Union analogy.
> However, I believe that you (and Anthony and Dimitri) are still missing
> the point in terms of our membership mix. We are not getting the $$
> from just the "managers" and hence biasing the process. The majority
> of our operating revenue actually is being provided by consumer
> organizations - not the vendors! Perhaps you and others choose not to
> believe me, but this is the absolute truth. The traditional GIS vendors
> provide about 1/20th of our annual revenue. The other 95% is derived
> primarily from user organizations (USGS, FEMA, EPA, Census, Ordnance
> Survey, Natural Resources Canada and so forth) and from the smaller
> geospatial technology companies.
>
> So the users are driving the process more than the vendors. The vendors
> actually appreciate this because they are getting requirements for
> product and a better understanding of user need.
>
> Now, has the OGC achieved "true" interoperability? What is "true"
> interoperability?? There is a well known, long standing definition for
> interoperability along the lines that interoperability is achieved when
> a user can sit at a client and have seamless access to multiple,
> heterogeneous information repositories and processing services provided
> by mutliple vendors. And, the user requires no special training or
> knowledge to use these interoperable solutions. Now, if this is the
> definition of interoperability, then the OGC has demonstrated and
> proven interoperability over and over again. Further, our members are
> building and deploying working solutions based on OGC specifications.
>
> > To align OGC towards interoperability per se (not the specs,
> interfaces &
> > ....) are you able to kick out all the proprietary tool sellers from
> your <snip, snip>
>
> Please do not confuse what the OGC mission is - the development of
> interfaces that allow services, information repositories, and
> applications to interoperate - with how companies do business in the
> market place. We do not dictate market practices. If a vendor wishes to
> "hide" their proprietary algorithm implementations behind an OGC
> interface, that is their business decision. If they wish to create Open
> Source (which some of our members have), then that is also their
> business decision. Now, we have many members who have implemented OGC
> interfaces in their products or applications and are selling/deploying
> these solutions quite successfully in the market place, especially
> Canada, Europe, and Australia.
>
> In terms of the "revenue jewel", many of our members have determined
> that interoperability actually expands the market and provides them
> greater opportunity to sell their products and make money.
>
> And finally, on doing it the OGC way because the OGC says so? Come one.
> The OGC does not dictate to anyone about the who, why, or whatever.
> That said, our user members sure do dictate! See the new E-Government
> Act, 2002 wording on Geospatial. I added below for your enjoyment :-)
>
> Regards
>
> Carl
>
> SEC. 216. COMMON PROTOCOLS FOR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
>
> (a) PURPOSES- The purposes of this section are to--
>
> (1) reduce redundant data collection and information: and
>
> (2) promote collaboration and use of standards for government
> geographic information.
>
> (b) DEFINITION- In this section, the term `geographic information'
> means information systems that involve locational data, such as maps or
> other geospatial information resources.
>
>
> (c) IN GENERAL-
>
> (1) COMMON PROTO
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
