|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Interior e-gov tack irks GIS vendors (Geospatial
One-Stop initiative) |
| Date: |
04/19/2003 04:35:01 AM |
| From: |
Michael Gould |
|
|
A bit cynical Dimitri (!)
Zero effect is grossly overstating the choice between a single-vendor=20
solution and an open architecture (into which that other single vendor is=
=20
welcome to compete and provide certain pluggable components).
And on your SDTS example, it is a fine example of how dictating the use of=
=20
a format does not (and did not, in hindsight) solve the problem...because=
=20
people have traditions and historical ways of doing things and it is=20
difficult to get them to swing 180 degrees over night.
Now, you might argue that OGC's GML is essentially the same: dictating=20
another data format. Ah, but the distributed computing world has changed=20
since the SDTS days.... GML is not A data format, rather a base XML Schema=
=20
from which people derive their own formats (application schemas).
These days we do not need to force people to convert whole-hog to a single=
=20
format, only ask them to be able to transform (XSLT) to common formats when=
=20
needed.
Nothing against any one vendor, but each should make some attempt to be the=
=20
best it can, AND leave open doors to the outside world for those who are=20
not 100% within the family. Whether or not these vendors see this as a=20
threat or an opportunity is another matter. we hope for the latter.
Have you seen the movie A Beautiful Mind (John Nash story)? Nash=20
reformulated Adam Smith's theory of competition being best for the whole=20
(the group as a whole benefits from everyone doing what's best for=20
him/herself)... so that the new equilibrium theory states something like=20
the group benefits from individuals doing what's best for him/herself AND=
=20
for the group as a whole. Or, it's a zero-sum game.
apply that to the above.
Mike Gould
At 11:49 18/04/2003 -0700, Dimitri Rotow wrote:
>Well it seems it doesn't make much difference whether they choose
>living-fossil technology from ESRI or living-fossil pseudo-technology from
>OGC. Either way it will have zero effect on whether or not they achieve
>their stated goals, which depend more upon the politics between agencies a=
nd
>whether or not those argencies are well-managed or poorly managed, than up=
on
>which particular technology they choose to implement the project. As
>been said, "a talented man with an abacus can achieve more than a fool with
>a calculator."
>
>Consider the goals:
>
> > >
> > > The project has four primary goals:
> > >
> > > * Improve the sharing of geospatial information across
> > > federal, state and
> > > local agencies.
> > >
> > > * Improve planning for future investments in
> > > geospatial data.
> > >
> > > * Support cross-government partnerships on geospatial
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > * Foster the development of geospatial-related
> > > standards.
> > >
>
>If we are to suspend our cynicism for a moment and take the above goals
>seriously, the key question to ask is "Are they taking reasonable measures
>to achieve these goals with the tools and standards already at hand?" The
>answer in this case is a resounding "No," and that's a "No" because many
>agencies simply don't want to share data with the public or even with each
>other and won't release data unless they are dragged into court and
>compelled to do so.
>
>Let's try a thought experiment: suppose agencies really wanted to share
>data - why not use SDTS and simply put everything up for free download via
>FTP? SDTS is a perfectly good, non-proprietary standard suitable for a ve=
ry
>wide range of data that is supported by a wide range of modern GIS package=
s.
>FTP or similar is low-cost, fast and highly effective as the various USGS
>web sites have proven over the years. You don't need much in the way of a
>web front end to make it possible for people to browse and find data,
>assuming that data's available in the first place. You certainly don't ne=
ed
>some ponderous bureaucracy coupled with designer obstacles to fast access
>developed by the famously "unopen" crowd at either OGC or ESRI.
>
>My point is this: if agencies are not using perfectly good Federal
>geospatial standards like SDTS to provide fast, effective and
>non-proprietary access to data using perfectly good, widespread Internet
>technologies, then one would have to be naive to expect that they would
>suddenly decide to share data, etc, as a result of this particular project.
>Whether they use ESRI or OGC will have no effect on that.
>
>So, let me make a prediction what's going to come out of this project in t=
he
>next year or two:
>
>1) There will be no net increase in data avail
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
