Hi mike,
Yes, I was disappointed when Google Maps/Earth first surfaced because it
seemed to undercut the progress made with OWS interoperability. The core
data underlying the new internet map infrastructures, Microsoft, Google,
Yahoo.. etc, are all subject to branding and copyright restrictions. The
Terraserver model that allows everyone to benefit evidently doesn't fit the
ad driven business model behind internet mapping. At least the ad business
model has seriously driven innovation. It just lacks OWS interoperability
since even as an OGC spec KML is still a one way street into the Google
brand. I assume Microsoft will field a similar xaml road to Redmond. GML
will be a government thing.
Speaking of the government, progress seems so so slow. The US Census Bureau
had WMS prototypes for TIGER way back in 2001-2002, but they are just now
releasing RFPs for the next decennial distribution contract. (and we can
only hope political considerations don't hopelessly entangle the future of
Census distribution with ESRI)
WFS and TIGER would seem to be made for one another and WFS-T with local
governments could actually reduce the costly burden of the once a decade
push for massively updating vector infrastructure.
The USGS seems hopelessly mired in decades old data models and still
distributes key data sources as standalone files over ftp and cd. Even
OneStop can't seem to get beyond very simplistic shares like bird migrations
(I apologize to the ornithologists on the list). In general standalone
arcinfo workstations still seem to be the primary target and they are
hanging on to SDTS after ten years of futility.
I suppose the USGS is fighting for its life and politics doesn't lend itself
to innovation at any level. Heck, they can't even decide whether the NGTOC
should be in Rolla or Denver, which doesn't bode well for any bold decisive
innovation.
On the bright side, NASA/JPL have done some really wonderful things on a
shoestring budget. The JPL WMS service with all that SRTM dem, BMNG, etc is
a windfall for anyone wanting to enter the 3D world. They are even giving
out the core code to worldwind as well as the data. They simply haven't been
given enough funding to make the service reliable or host more detailed
imagery. Perhaps congress could just roll funding out of the USGS and turn
up the power over at JPL/NASA. It seems they are closer to the data source
anyway with imagery, lidar etc driving the Geospatial world these days.
. rant, rant sorry it's Sat
rkgeorge
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Liebhold
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Geowanking] Open Geodata,was : Measuring Open Source Citenzenship
- Reconsidering
/me putting on flame-retardent firesuit
the problem of openness of code, is critically related to openess of data
in open shareable formats.
the reason, that opening google's up the future of KML to the OGC and we
hope W3C has less to do with owner ship of the code than it does, the much
larger future and benefits of open, shared of structured geodata, that can
be created and shared in by any application.
a counter example is the use of proprietary tools to create stuctured data
that can only be read by proprietary readers. e.g. a world health atlas,
where very important data, that should be shared widely for great social
benefit is exportable instead in proprietary data structures - in one of
case, arcobjects - incorporating important, though complex topological
geodata.
- mike
Dan Brickley wrote:
Regarding "I'm not saying that what these companies are doing is wrong, but
I think it is obvious that some companies are better open source partners
than others."
1. it's far from obvious to me that there is a single simple ranking
A company could be a fabulously good citizen in opensource terms, pouring
millions into community, openness or whatever, ... yet have chosen to boost
opensource for entirely competitive reasons, eg. to damage a rival in the
marketplace, support a file-format that they've other investments in, or
whatever.
You mention that this might be considered "unethical". Others might consider
it business as usual.
How such scenarios are ranked is so subjective, that it becomes painfully
simplistic to claim "betterness" is in the general case obvious. Of course
there are some cases which are going to be obvious: If my company Semantic
Web Vapourware Ltd releases my 1982 ZX81 classic
10 PRINT "DANBRI IS COOL"
20 GOTO 10
Under GPL (share & enjoy!) perhaps I'm being a lesser opensource citizen
than say IBM; 50% of the lines in my public codebase are probably considered
harmless, after all. And they may not be entirely original, either. But what
practical purpose does such a ranking achieve? Is a company that ships the
above code under GPL a "better" or "worse" opensource citizen than
Microsoft? *who cares* :)
2. Why pick on companies?
Same issues crop up with individuals and non-profit organizations such as
universities. Some are better or worse at various aspects of ceding and
sharing control, at communicating, at following through on promises, on
balancing vanity and leadership, ... at making themselves understood.
I really don't see much merit in pursuing quite this line of investigation.
Sure, list some factors that work well or don't, in various contexts. But
don't try to turn them into a single ranking, ... and note that many of
those factors work just same for individuals who are opensourcing their
personal works...
cheers,
Dan
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
