|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Re: GIS P2P * Market Research Question * |
| Date: |
01/24/2003 02:46:20 PM |
| From: |
J Bee |
|
|
You gotta be kidding me! Allan hit the nail on the
head, especially on point #4. You really think
Dimitri's mentioning of a $249 seat is "coincidental"
to Manifolds price?? Well then, CORGRATULATIONS!!!!
You are now Mr. Naive 2003!!!!
Not only is Dimitri a blowhard, but his using this
list to promote his own softeware package is extremely
blatant. My guess is that Manifold's "over 1 million
lines of code" that Diimitri always gloats about
consists of 999,999 "comment" lines....
Just guessing of course...
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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]
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,
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
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
