|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Cartography and Data Viewer |
| Date: |
08/26/2003 07:50:01 PM |
| From: |
Jeff Harrison |
|
|
Dimitri, in the thread below you describe OGC demonstrations as heavily-funded exercises. I think you are referring to some of the demonstrations developed by OGC Members as part of the OGC Interoperability Program. Everyone can have opinions, but I think that it's important to point out just a few facts. First of all, recent demonstrations developed by OGC Members are designed to drive out real-world interoperability issues so they may be captured in the form of Specifications and putting one together certainly does help accomplish that. Next, it's not accurate to state that such demonstrations are all "heavily-funded" since many of them were accomplished at very low cost (I'm sure some folks wished there was more funding). Also, in your "Potemkim village" comment below, you seem to indicate that some demonstrations were not what they appeared to be. If you could point out which ones you were concerned about, I'd be happy to look into the issues raised.
I think this discussion confirms the fact that folks are discovering that multiple methods of data and content distribution and access are reasonable and that one size probably doesn't fit all. Right now, some folks are disseminating files via FTP, some are distributing content via live web mapping services, and some distribute paper maps. I get my news from newspapers, the radio, email, telephone, television and the web. I think one content distribution and access method is not necessarily better or worse than another, just different.
By the way, in the interest of "openness", I will point out that I work on the Staff of OGC. I was the Executive Director of OGC's Interoperability Program from January 2001 to earlier this year. During that period, I had the pleasure of participating in many OGC Demonstrations (learned something from every single one :) I look forward to talking to everyone.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff Harrison
Executive Director, Program Development
Open GIS Consortium
tel: + 1 703 628 8655
Dimitri Rotow wrote:
>
> > I am sorry that the competitive delivery of GIS and its base
> > information via
> > the net and software other than buy yours is upsetting to you personally.
> > And if the OGC and other OGC-like efforts are threatening to your
> > company's
> > future, then that is the way it is. Times change Old Boy!
> >
>
> My company? Let's see... I recommended ArcExplorer, an ESRI product, in
> response to the original post. I don't work for ESRI, now, do I? (Let me
> check my badge... nope... not ESRI).
>
> As far as times changing, OGC-like stuff is incredibly old-fashioned from a
> techology perspective. What serious technologist regards GML as either
> modern or efficient? It is a bureaucrat's dream, but one who is out of
> touch with the possibilities of modern technology. The idea of living
> fossils ganging together under an OGC banner to declare that "dinosaurs
> aren't dead... really!" is not hardly an example of "times changing"... it
> is an example of a conservative reaction to modern GIS.
>
> > As for internet delivery by connection to data and related data
> > processing/presentation services that will likely eclipse your products
> > well I too remember (faintly) the 300 baud modems of last decade. Today I
> > enjoy broadband and look to someday have essentially "free" not just
> > megabytes but terabytes pipes.
> >
>
> I think you are confusing the difference between products that deliver data
> and products that work with data. The company I work for builds products
> that work with data. The more data, the merrier, and frankly we really
> don't care how people get that data. However, that doesn't mean that the
> laws of physics change (such as a basic limitation on the speed of light) or
> that the effect of such laws on the performance of machines and software
> changes.
>
> Your argument that "some day networks will be faster" does not really
> address the physics of the matter. For why, see the essay at
> http://exchange.manifold.net/manifold/manuals/5_userman/mfd50GIS_and_Network
> ing.htm
>
>
> > My bet is the "public" maps that construct the base of most "personal"
> > spatial analysis is best served from a library, either private and/or
> > public. The emerging benefits from up-to-date mapping
> > depositories/services,
> > agreed, has had some rough moments due to mainly designed incompatibility
> > due to GIS product competitions. I believe that is mostly behind
>
> No, it is mainly due to the bureaucratic foolishness of the OGC designs.
> People like solutions that are fast, elegant, effective
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
