isn't that a bit in contradiction with the fact that so far, Google hasn't been trying much to harmonize KML with GML, for instance ?
I agree that in many cases KML is a better choice than GML, because of GML's complexity. But I feel like it would not have been much of an effort to define KML as a subset/profile of GML. And thereby get immediate interoperability. Am I wrong here ? --p. On 2/8/07, Mike Liebhold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_id=2399&trv=1 A Google View of Data Sharing By Joe Francica Directions Mag (Feb 01, 2007) [snip] "At the Map World Forum in Hyderabad, India, Michael Jones, chief technologist of Google Earth, shared his views on the benefits of standards. Google is an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) principal member and supports efforts to encourage standards adoption. Google has a "democratized" view of data sharing which begins with the vast amount of information that has already been captured by those working in GIS. Jones believes in ways to provide better access to those data. He explained that most geospatial data today is locked away in workstations managed by proprietary software. He was perhaps referring to those data controlled by local and state government departments. "We have to envision a future world where data is published," he said. "We may want to knock on the door of the Survey of India and ask them what data they want to share with the world." Jones' vision is to have "all" geospatial information available to the world and indexed in a way that it can be accessed by those who need it. "Google has a mission to allow more data to be available and interoperable," he said. " . . . [snip] _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
