Thinking aloud, a possible contrarian view: A goal like "to produce a comprehensive suite of tools [that do X or Y]..." doesn't likely fit with OSGeo's broad membership and interests. We are an umbrella organization representing a number of projects, each with its own unique goals and agendas. It is unlikely OSGeo would be able to produce a specific tool just because (hypothetically) the Board says we should: open source folks often don't take top-down direction well, unless it meets their own personal needs and agendas.
Which is not to say that an analytical tool suite is a bad idea, just that it seems unlikely to be a worthy goal at that level of the hierarchy. -mpg > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss- > boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of "René A. Enguehard" > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 2:35 PM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Next 5 years for OSGeo > > What I'd like to see within the next 5 years would be more analytical > tools. Most of the projects in OSGeo are very much enablers: they put > the facilities in place for people to program their own tools. However, > as I have noticed over the years, people are reluctant to move to open > source implementations of geospatial software because they are, in > effect, losing capabilities. Yes, there is still the potential for the > same capabilities to be put back in, but the fact remains they just > aren't there. For example, I have never seen any MCDA, PCA, HotSpot > Analysis, CART or neural network tools in open source packages. If we > were to produce a comprehensive suite of tools offering the standard > analytical tools as well as some more advanced ones, then these > proprietary offerings wouldn't look as appealing. Moreover, if we had a > consolidated toolset which could be used on a multitude of project we > would not have to re-invent the wheel for each separate project. > Currently, proprietary software generally offers advanced analytic > capability out-of-the-box and open source software does not. I see this > as a bit of a stumbling block. > > Another thing, and I was chatting about this in the lab today, is that > for particular needs, open source implementations of geospatial > software > generally don't have much to offer. The generic capabilities are there, > or at least enabled for others to program, but special-needs cases > there > is not much. The example used today in the lab was CARIS HIPS or SIPS. > What, if anything, exists in the open source community that could come > close to the processing capabilities of this? > > Still another area with a lack of development is 3D and 4D modeling / > rendering / analysis, something like ESRI ArcGlobe with the 3D Analyst > package or Myriax Eonfusion. There has been very little work in these > domains which are of particular interest to me. Perhaps the amount of > people working in these areas is much smaller than the amount of people > using something more like general analytic capabilities, but it is an > area that "needs work" nonetheless. > > The point, and I'd like to make this clear, is not the I'm bemoaning > the > lack of features and projects in the open source community. I think > OSGeo and the open source community have done a tremendous job and > should feel, rightfully, proud at what they have accomplished. However, > when asked what I'd like to see on the agenda for OSGeo, this is it. > I'd > like to see a hard push towards analytics to make the various projects > we have to offer more directly useful to the average GIS user. In the > end, it's really about market penetration. The more useful open source > software is, the better a "deal" it looks like to outsiders and the > more > people we'll attract. > > Please note: I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, IANAL, > just > my two cents, your mileage may vary, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. > > Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote: > > Hi everyone, a recent chat I was asked about our vision for OSGeo > over > > the next 3 and 5 years. I'd really like to hear thoughts on the > matter > > and pool a few of the ideas together for further discussions amongst > > committees, projects, chapters and the board. > > > > It's also a good way for the board nominees in the upcoming election > to > > get a sense of where other members are thinking these days. > > > > Best wishes, > > Tyler > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss