|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: [gislist] google maps and OGC Testing |
| Date: |
02/28/2005 09:15:01 AM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
Jeff,
Point take on your volunteering various testing examples. I was remiss in
not initially articulating a desire to see comprehensive and explicit
performance testing details. You have indeed provided ample references to
tests that have been done. Thank you for that. However, there is a lack of
whatever resembles "objectivity" or independence in these tests as far as I
can see. Tests publicized by commercial firms or their respective clients
hardly qualify as independent test environments. I can certainly appreciate
the fact that commercial firms and/or their clients are loathe to publish
such metrics as they are very likely part of a proprietary solution. Fine,
no bones about that. What I intended to spur debate about was the lack of
"peer reviewed" analytical scientific tests available to the general GIS
industry. Is this unreasonable to ask ?
On your comment below: "One of most important "performance factors" that you
did not cite was - How well do OGC Specifications support the rapid
integration of distributed geospatial systems? Well, it took only three
weeks to bring together over 20 separate system components for the demo. "
I don't think it is possible to evaluate whether this is "fast" or slower
than government reform.... Is 3 weeks fast? 20 system components could be
almost anything, and I have no idea what they could be, and I'm not going to
ask you to reveal all of that as it was likely not for public consumption
anyway given the forum of the demo. It may be fast for you and your very
specific needs, but can you confidently assert it would be as relatively
fast for 80% of potential users ?
You noted that: "On the second point of can different vendors interpret
specifications differently with some negative performance on
interoperability resulting. The answer is yes to this as well. " As I tried
to illustrate on the last go round on this topic (perhaps a year ago) where
I was equally bashed for daring to question anything related to OGC, that
when a specification or group of specifications are intentionally created
with so much liberty to "interpret" in such a wide range of possibilities,
does it not beg the question of having a standard to begin with ? I mean,
if a standard has to be so broad and generic as to allow for all interested
parties to have their idiosyncratic concerns included in the "standard",
what value does the standard have at a very specific level. In quality
management parlance, when a standard is "descriptive" rather than
"prescriptive" it effectively is not really a standard. Take a look at the
ISO 9000 series of standards for Quality Management Systems, particularly as
applied the GIS industries (although this criticism is not unique to those
standards in the GIS industry, however it would be most familiar to people
on this list). Many companies today like to point out that their GIS
operations are "ISO 9001:9002" and hang their hats on that and try and
leverage that in winning bids. These standards are well known, well
published. The standards are very "descriptive" and avoid being
"prescriptive". Why ? Because, as is readily apparent, the standards are
meant to be implemented across all industries, not just GIS (where the
"products" are general digital in nature) and so, the standard cannot
prescribe a highly specific method of implementing procedures for quality
management. If it did, it would surely take on an encyclopedic volume of
information, virtually guaranteeing its failure. Now, these companies
dutifully implement a quality management system that conforms to the letter
of the law of the standard, and the get their certificate to hang on the
wall and the graphic to put on their letterhead and marketing materials.
Does this ISO certification guarantee better quality? Absolutely not. Does
it even increase the likelihood of said organization delivering higher
quality products. Absolutely not. Despite this fact, many people are
seduced into believing the contrary. What does this have to do with OGC
standards ? As with ISO quality standards, OGC standards are generous in
their scope and breadth are they not, relatively so ? This is the natural
result of a collaborative effort by a large group of participants.
Rightfully so, those participants participate because they want their ideas
incorporated. At what point does the resulting standard reflect the de
factor industry practices, and the standard only codifies these in a
formalized manner ?
For those that suggest I simply like to "stir the pot" and rip apart OGC for
the sake of nothing else to do should look more closely at the underlying
premise and push of my arguments (now and in previous threads). This time
around, my original post "I am wondering and musing how this implementation
of
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
