|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: [gislist] google maps and OGC Testing |
| Date: |
03/02/2005 01:25:01 PM |
| From: |
Michael Gould |
|
|
Here's a twist on the google versus OGC theme.
Quote extracted from an ESRI press release=20
http://www.esri.com/news/releases/05_1qtr/gisportal.html (February 2,=20
2005) where they discuss how wonderful their Geospatial One-Stop 2 (GOS2)=20
implementation will be:
"GOS 2 will provide an easier, faster, and more integrated implementation=20
that creates a spatial marketplace, which supplies notification of planned=
=20
data acquisitions as well as data needs.
A new method for integrated spatial and subject searching uses the proven=20
Google Search Appliance and allows for subsecond metadata searches.=20
Implementation of newly established Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.=99=20
(OGC=99), specifications improves the level of interoperability of GOS 2. "
So you see (Anthony), it's not either/or, why not both? ... proprietary or=
=20
open fast routines, connected using interoperable interfaces (OGC).
cheers,
Mike Gould
At 18:20 28/02/2005, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>Anthony Quartararo wrote:
>
>>You say that "factors like map generation, response time etc. are not a
>>factor of the specification, rather the vendor implementation of the=
spec":
>>this may be true to some extent, but are there really so many=
possibilities
>>of implementing a "standard" that it would manifest itself in significant
>>differences between vendors ?
>
>Anthony, your mail was full of rhetorical questions, but this one in=20
>particular needs a response: the answer is a full throated *yes*. And it=20
>applies to all kinds of standards.
>
>I can make a perfectly specified 0.5" screw, with the exact thread spacing=
=20
>and head form, out of plastic, and it will perform very differently from a=
=20
>stainless steel screw, despite having the exact specified dimensions=20
>necessary for interoperability with other screws.
>
>Similarly, I can stand up two WMS servers, using the same software and=20
>data on both, and get radically different performance, if I do not use a=20
>spatial index on one, and do on another.
>
>Standards and implementation of standards are different things. There can=
=20
>be fast and slow implementations of the same standard. The very idea of a=
=20
>"reference implementation" feeds into this idea: a "reference=20
>implementation" of a standard is one that is intended to be functionally=20
>complete, but not necessarily either fast or user friendly.
>
>Paul
>
>_______________________________________________
>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!
|
