|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question * |
| Date: |
01/24/2003 01:41:55 PM |
| From: |
Allan Doyle |
|
|
Since it's not always easy to read these diatribes, I'll help out.
Dimitri said:
1. Keep it simple
2. Think about underlying data and services,
not just pre-rendered maps
3. Avoid OGC, he hates it. OGC standards suck.
4. Buy Manifold, he loves it. Everything else sucks.
My take:
1. Good advice
2. Good advice
3. Bad advice. I think you should not constrain yourself one way or
the other with OGC stuff. Who knows, there might be some useful
nuggets there.
4. Who knows. He might be right. But it's your money so spend it
wisely, not based on who can pound out the most number of words
in any given email message.
On Friday, January 24 2003 at 11:26:13(-0800) Dimitri Rotow wrote:
>
> >
> > A group of us in the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) are reviewing options
> > for developing a p2p geo-refereneced data publication mechanism.
> >
> > The target is not so much the 'serious GIS practitioner' but rather the
> > field researcher who may have a limited number of tabular datasets, with
> > some form of spatial referencing, that they're willing and able to publish
> > in a manner that makes them accessible for rendering as maps, charts etc
> > via OGC-type interfaces. Essentially, data discovery - 'I have some such
> > data'. Embelishments could incorporate allowing downloads of the data, or
> > choosing to upload to central repositories should the custodians see the
> > benefit of additional relaibility or availability. This obviously is not a
> > commercial model, but a public good scenario.
> >
> > Our envisaged application include on-the-fly consolidation of data on e.g.
> > marine mammals being gathered by scattered and disparate researchers often
> > at the the thin end on internet connectivity.
> >
> > The requirement for high-quality metadata need not be re-iterated here.
> > However, our potential contributors are those who probably have
> > never heard
> > of OGC, ISO/TC-211 or even GIS!
> >
>
> Mick,
>
> First, let me commend you and your colleagues at UNEP for placing data
> online. There's a vast array of UN GIS data that could be helping people
> around the world if only it were made accessible, and the UNEP site is a
> really ground-breaking step on the way to getting that data out of the file
> cabinets and hard disks of the UN and into people's hands. The site looks
> good and functions well and the data it presents is really useful. Well
> done!
>
> Second, I'd encourage you to consider the following points in any P2P
> project:
>
> 1) Keep it simple. I think you are already focused on this but it bears
> reinforcement. Don't slow things down to create the most perfect,
> metadatable wonderful thing that anyone might ever need. Get it going in
> the simplest way and then grow it.
>
> 2) Think in terms of real GIS, not just presentation or rendering. Modern
> GIS that can do anything that was possible just a few years ago with $50,000
> in GIS software per seat now costs less than $250 a seat. Anyone who can
> afford Microsoft Office can today afford to do real GIS in a considerably
> more sophisticated way than what was done just a few years ago when (quite
> likely) most of those data sets were created. That means if the data
> available is worthwhile in terms of content the main constituency to use
> that data is people who will be able to work with it in sophisticated ways
> within a real GIS environment, not just some dumb viewer or render-only web
> site. Plus, people who work with the data in a real GIS environment provide
> an important "multiplier" effect by adding value to the data, combining it
> with new data sets, presenting it in many forms for those who cannot do GIS,
> etc. So, encourage the availability and exchange of the actual data.
>
> 3) Encourage the use of whatever format the data is in - avoid citing OGC,
> since OGC standards work against cost-effective usage and dissemination. To
> take a specific case, the recent threads here on GML and Adena Shultzberg's
> excellent reporting in GIS Monitor show what an utterly idiotic and
> dysfunctional thing GML is, so don't encourage people to place obstacles in
> the path of sharing data by adopting OGC obstacles. Encourage people to
> present their data in whatever formats they have it in, right now. Any
> truly modern GIS package will enable your users to work with data in any
> popular format effortlessly, all for a cost much less than Microsoft Office.
> The last thing you want is for all those scattered and disparate researchers
> to t
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
