|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: OGC and Standards |
| Date: |
01/07/2003 11:20:53 AM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
Carl,
Agree completely with you on the latter points. To quote you precisely,=20
" The majority of our operating revenue actually is being provided by=20
> consumer organizations - not the vendors! Perhaps you and others=20
> choose not to believe me, but this is the absolute truth. The=20
> traditional GIS vendors provide about 1/20th of our annual revenue.=20
> The other 95% is derived primarily from user organizations (USGS,=20
> FEMA, EPA, Census, Ordnance Survey, Natural Resources Canada and so=20
> forth) and from the smaller geospatial technology companies."
In your email back to Aarti on December 19th, 2002. I don't see where I put
words in your mouth about a US centric view, but you do have to admit that a
preponderance of OGC members, big ones and little ones alike are here in the
US. Does this not, by default, create a US centric view?=20=20
I don't feel qualified to speak on behalf of Dimitri, but for myself, the
only reason for my post is just as you suggest, to "use our energies to
promote the effective use of geospatial technology and serve our communities
as best we can". My contention is that OGC is not in line with this
suggestion.
Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: creediii@mindspring.com [mailto:creediii@mindspring.com]=20
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 4:55 PM
To: ajq3@spatialnetworks.com
Cc: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: OGC and Standards
Anthony -
I hate to jump into this public discussion/debate once again.=20
However, I must correct your misrepresentation of a couple of statements I
made in a private email to one member of the GISList.
First, in terms of OGC revenue, my statement was that 95% of the funding for
the Consortium operations was from sources other than the major GIS vendors.
Second, in my comments regarding users, I am not sure why you say I took
such a US centric view. I have previously listed many other non US
organizations who are users of GIS technology and who also particpate in OGC
activities. These include consumer organizations from Europe, Asia, and
Australia.
Having followed this discussion from the beginning, it is obvious to me that
we are beginning to enter the cirular argument phase. In IETF parlance, this
is becoming a "rathole" discussion. As such, this discussion may be becoming
counter productive. Personally, I would rather we all use our energies to
promote the effective use of geospatial technology and serve our communities
as best we can regardless of our philosophical and/or technical differences.
Thank you to everyone who has particpated in this discussion. Regardless of
the differences in viewpoint, such discussions keep everyone thinking and
our discipline vigourous.
Happy Holidays to all!
Carl Reed
OGC
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:09:32 -0500 Anthony Quartararo
<ajq3@spatialnetworks.com> wrote:
> Sonny,
>=20
> Nicely articulated. However, the debate has
> hardly deteriorated at all,
> given the sheer number of off-list emails I
> have received in support of not
> only my comments/positions, but others of like
> perspective. I can only
> surmise that there is a significant number of
> people that are
> disenfranchised, disappointed, disillusioned
> and otherwise dismayed at the
> state of the industry, in no small part due to
> OGC and it's sugar-daddies.
>=20
> Further, I'm glad as well to see a refreshing
> piece of candor and frankness
> from you, and I echo what Dimitri said
> regarding the larger OGC market spin.
> Be honest and clear about what OGC's mission
> and efforts and don't pretend
> there are no hidden agendas. Carl Reed replied
> to another person off-line
> (the post was made public by someone else so
> it's fair game), that 95% of
> OGC's revenue comes from the like of USGS,
> Census, NIMA, Ordnance Survey
> and the like. I'll take his word for it, even
> though my math differs from
> his math based on OGCs website figures. If
> this is true, this is a
> regrettably scenario. USGS, Census, NIMA, et
> al should absolutely not be
> involved in controlling the destiny of
> "interoperability" at any level,
> whether "internet only", "desktop", or
> wherever. The devote public funds
> towards proprietary private technology is
> wrong. The organizations do not
> represent the global geospatial user base nor
> do they have that
> constituency's best interest(s) at heart. To
> further quote Dr. Reed in this
> email, he suggests that vendors appreciate
> getting the feedback from "users"
> to help drive product development. As I assert
> that the dubious title of
> user as bestowed on USGS, etc. is a falsehood,
> I was unaware that a prime
> objective of OGC was to help vendors refine
&g
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
