|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: [gislist] google maps and OGC Testing |
| Date: |
02/28/2005 11:15:04 AM |
| From: |
Carl Reed |
|
|
I like short responses :-) Google is a classic stovepipe application and
therefore does not need to use certain standards as interoperability behind
the client application is not required. Now, if Google wishes to access and
"fuse" geo content into their application from other non-Google controlled
sources . . . What Google has done has increased overall awareness of
geospatial. They have actually gotten the attention of the large carriers.
This is all good for the industry - including the OGC.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Quartararo" <ajq3@spatialnetworks.com>
To: <jeffreygharrison@aol.com>: <gislist@lists.thinkburst.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: [gislist] google maps and OGC Testing
> 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
>
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
