|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question * |
| Date: |
01/24/2003 02:30:14 PM |
| From: |
PSTERLING |
|
|
Sorry, Friday is quantity only. We reserve quality for Tues-Thur only.
-----Original Message-----
From: William Howell [mailto:WHowell@mclaneenv.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 12:03 PM
To: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question *
That's funny I didn't see him mention anything about Manifold. Yes, he
loves it and so do many other people that have made the switch or at
least checked it out but he merely stated a price cap (which happens to
coincide). Some of us are a bit tired of paying over a grand for a
piece of software that won't get you anywhere without expensive
extensions.
BTW, who's doing word counts for opinion quality?
William L. Howell
-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Doyle [mailto:adoyle@intl-interfaces.com]=20
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:41 PM
To: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question *
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,=20
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=20
2. Good advice=20
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: >=20
> >
> > 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! > > >=20
> Mick,
>=20
> 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! >=20
> Second, I'd encourage you to consider the following points in any P2P
> project: >=20
> 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. >=20
> 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, pres
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
