|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: [gislist] google maps |
| Date: |
02/17/2005 02:50:02 PM |
| From: |
Michael Gould |
|
|
You seem to be misinterpreting the role of OGC. Think of OGC as developing=
=20
the equivalent of plug-and-play specifications, but instead of for hardware=
=20
(CD-ROMS drives etc.) they are for (software) services.
If we substitute CD-ROM drives for OGC services, then perhaps you will see=
=20
that what you are asking is not so relevant.
What is the speed or throughput of a plug-n-play CD-ROM drive versus a=20
non-p-n-p model? The answer doesn't have much to do with being=20
plug-n-play...one or the other could be faster irrespective....
Our research group began (today!) a small project to benchmark WMS and WFS=
=20
(open source implementations) for speed in a wide range of situations (data=
=20
volume, multi-user load, Linux vs. Windows, available RAM, etc.). The=20
implementations themselves are at the root of the actual performance=20
however, not whether or how they support OGC specs. We are interested in=20
the results to be able to coach future orgs wishing to include these=20
services in SDI projects: which combinations of machines, clients, services=
=20
and data bases are appropriate for selected situations or use cases. In=20
all case we assume OGC specs, as this provides the ability to combine the=20
(heterogeneous) services in the first place.
M Gould
At 21:12 17/02/2005, Anthony Quartararo wrote:
>Does anyone from OGC or anyone who deals with them have any publishable
>metrics on interoperability performance ? Theory and concept are grand
>ideals, but the reality of the situation is, what does the user(s)=
community
>experience. The internet-bubble era maxim still stands, if a user does not
>get prompt, first-time, accurate service for a website, that user is gone
>and very hard to get back. This goes to the heart of the OGC open=
standards
>initiative to promote the use of the technologies it fosters, but if the
>performance is circa 1990 WWW, then why bother ? I would be interested, and
>even challenge anyone to make performance metrics available for general
>consumption on various scenarios of OGC-certified technology. I am talking
>bits n bytes folks, network latency, refresh rates, network parameters,=
test
>data used (raster/vector), analytical vs. static interaction. To my
>knowledge, there is nothing like this published on OGC website, nor by any
>companies involved in OGC standards. Why not ? I cannot believe that=
anyone
>forgets to do this type of testing, so, let's see the results please....
>
>Oh, and I know alot of factors go into these metrics, but something,
>anything would be helpful to assess the veracity and efficacy of all this
>OGC work, no ?
>
>Anthony
>_______________________________________________
>gislist mailing list
>gislist@lists.geocomm.com
>http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
>
>_________________________________
>This list is brought to you by
>The GeoCommunity
>http://www.geocomm.com/
>
>Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
>http://www.geobids.com
-----------------------
Michael Gould
Information Systems Department
(Lenguajes y Sistemas Inform=E1ticos)
Universitat Jaume I
E-12071 Castell=F3n, Spain
http://www.mgould.com
GeoInfo group http://www.geoinfo.uji.es
and TeIDE SDI consortium http://redgeomatica.rediris.es/teide/
2005 Vespucci summer school http://www.vespucci.org
_______________________________________________
gislist mailing list
gislist@lists.geocomm.com
http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
_________________________________
This list is brought to you by
The GeoCommunity
http://www.geocomm.com/
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
http://www.geobids.com
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
