|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Interior e-gov tack irks GIS vendors (Geospatial One-Stop initiative) |
| Date: |
04/22/2003 02:30:01 PM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
I can only hope that at the end of the day, after $1M+, that we have
something that is radically different than what exists today, and not just a
slightly modified, oh-so subtly different ball of wax, something truly
groundbreaking. Forgive me for the cynicism or pragmatism, but why should
anyone that is not knee-deep in OGC think this has any chance of success at
all? Isn't history and inertia against such efforts, however well intended
?=20
Regards,
Anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: creediii@mindspring.com [mailto:creediii@mindspring.com]=20
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 7:24 PM
> To: Paul Ramsey: Michael Gould
> Cc: gislist@geocomm.com
> Subject: Re: GISList: Interior e-gov tack irks GIS vendors=20
> (Geospatial One-Stop initiative)
>=20
>=20
> There is much more to GOS than just the portal effort. There=20
> is considerable work being done on schema mapping to address=20
> various semantic issues. The schema mapping is being done=20
> through cross organizational work groups. I do not want to=20
> start another OGC flame fest, but I thought that the List=20
> should realize that the GOS portal is the front end=20
> "technology part". There is also considerable effort "behind=20
> the scenes" dealing with the data model, institutional, and=20
> organizational issues.
>=20
> Carl Reed
> OGC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Ramsey" <pramsey@refractions.net>
> To: "Michael Gould" <gould@lsi.uji.es>
> Cc: <gislist@geocomm.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 10:22 AM
> Subject: Re: GISList: Interior e-gov tack irks GIS vendors=20
> (Geospatial One-Stop initiative)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Saturday, April 19, 2003, at 02:36 AM, Michael Gould wrote:
>=20
> > At 12:43 18/04/2003 -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> >> Dimitri Rotow wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let's try a thought experiment: suppose agencies really wanted to=20
> >>> share data - why not use SDTS and simply put everything=20
> up for free
> >>> download via
> >>> FTP?
> >>
> >> Dmitri is right, the problem of GIS data sharing has alot=20
> more to do=20
> >> with organizational intent than with technology. In many ways,=20
> >> OpenGIS technology could make the problem worse, by convincing=20
> >> organizations that they can have their cake and eat it=20
> too: provide=20
> >> access to data via OGC interfaces without losing "control"=20
> over their=20
> >> oh-so-precious data.
> >
> > Arrrrrrrrgh! You don't open the data (or your source=20
> code), you open=20
> > the INTERFACES!!!!
>=20
> That's exactly what I said. All I questioned was the uniform=20
> orthodoxy that the end result of all this talk about open=20
> interfaces was actually going to improve the overall ability=20
> of people to work with integrated data. A cascaded WMS=20
> service (might) look pretty, but you cannot answer many (any)=20
> analytical questions with it. If organizations remain=20
> unwilling to provide access to actual data, it is irrelevant=20
> whether they fail to provide access via WFS or fail to=20
> provide access via an FTP site full of SDTS files. My point=20
> is that the technology is not the hard part, yet it receives=20
> for more attention than the actual problem, which is=20
> organizational intransigence. In some cases, it is being=20
> substituted for solving the actual organizational problem=20
> ("aha, we can 'publish' our data via WMS and then people can=20
> look at it without actually touching it"). Is a half measure=20
> better than no measure? It depends on whether the=20
> half-measure is relieving the pressure to solve the whole problem.
>=20
> Do you see?
>=20
> Paul
>=20
> >
> >> The experience here in BC has certainly been instructive.=20
> On the one=20
> >> hand, a government employee created a heirarchical FTP site and=20
> >> placed as much licence-free BC data into has he could find, all in=20
> >> the same format and projection (unfortunately the format=20
> was E00, but=20
> >> c'est la vie). On the other hand an agency build a massive=20
> web portal=20
> >> for ordering data (including the free stuff, which can be had for=20
> >> free from the web site if you have the patience) for=20
> several million=20
> >> dollars.
> >>
> >> I've used the portal zero times and the FTP site hundreds of time.
> >>
> >> However, that was the *last* ten years. The *next* ten=20
> years could be=20
> &
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
