|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: GISList: OGC and Standards, - a response |
| Date: |
01/07/2003 11:20:54 AM |
| From: |
Ron Lake |
|
|
Hi,
Unless you are going to get all of the data you need, at once, and in one place
for any problem you might conceive of, it is hard to imagine not doing "GIS over
a network" - at the same time there is nothing whatever to say how much data you
move about in any transaction - it might be a small amount it might be large.
This depends on the application. OGC interfaces do not constrain you. So you
can have your cake and eat it too. The existence of a public, extensible format
like GML has enabled the creation of a public query and update language - so you
can update geographic database over the Internet. You should rejoice!
Ron
Dimitri Rotow wrote:
> >
> > After reading through all the posts, I am dismayed that this
> > discussion has
> > deteriorated to a debate about data formats instead of exploring
> > the issues
> > that started this thread.
>
> If I remember correctly, the issues that started this thread revolved around
> an assertion that the practical effect of OGC is to codify obsolete
> approaches to GIS to protect the obsolete product technologies of legacy
> vendors, while also playing a supporting role in codifying an architectural
> approach favored by institutional members who do not really want to release
> their public GIS holdings into the hands of the public.
>
> The discussion of GML format I believe is not really about the GML format
> but exploring a specific example case of how OGC specs end up being deformed
> and standing in the way of modern GIS. It's a typical OGC "carrier pigeon"
> technology that by it's very nature prevents a rapid and effective modern
> techonology.
>
> >
> > In my opinion as a former sponsor and current vendor, OGC's current thrust
> > in in distributed geoprocessing via the Interoperability Program is not
> > about "the average GIS user." In fact the "average GIS user" is
> > a miniscule
> > part of the folks that use spatial data on a daily basis. OGC is about
> > making geospatial processing available to everyone, not just technical
> > specialists with desktop systems.
> >
>
> Well, I appreciate your candor. Now, if OGC was honest as you are about
> their objectives they would make it clear on their website that those of use
> who are technical specialists with desktop systems are *not* the
> constituency served by OGC and that OGC will happily craft specs that reduce
> our quality of life in favor of chasing the rainbow of "making geospatial
> processing available to everyone." That would save us technical specialists
> with desktop systems from wasting any time thinking that OGC specs are
> something we would want to get involved with.
>
> The idea of "making geospatial processing available to everyone" involves a
> number of least-common-denominator constraints. In the real world, a
> utopian approach of crafting an architecture that thinks it can provide
> geospatial processing to everyone will result in compromises that prevent
> the high-performance desktop from being all it can be.
>
> Technically, there is really a choice: either you design for a high
> performance, interactive, modern desktop or you design for an arms-length,
> low-performance web interface. But, you cannot optimize both. There are
> people who say you can use the same interfaces within a high performance
> desktop that can also serve the low-performance solution. It's true that
> you can, but if your desktop solution is held back compromises made for a
> more low performance architecture you will never have as fast, powerful,
> modern and elegant high performance solution as can be created by someone
> who is designing for the high performance desktop without constraints.
>
> Much of what one sees come out of OGC is just the old idea of "doing GIS
> over a network" come back from the dead. Why this is foolish if one wants a
> high performance desktop experience is laid out in the essay at (watch the
> line wraps):
>
> http://exchange.manifold.net/manifold/manuals/5_userman/mfd50GIS_and_Network
> ing.htm
>
> >
> > The first message is the concept of the "geospatial dial-tone." The idea
> > behind the the geospatial dial-tone is that like a 2600 Hz signal either a
> > person or a machine knows what to do request information from a
> > service and
> > what to do with the information that the service provides. I was recently
>
> That's fine as a general aspiration, but if it is implemented in a way that
> works against high performance computing it is not such a good idea.
>
> > driving in Europe and called a business associate in the US on my US cell
> > phone. I was a
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
