On Dec 29, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Allan Doyle wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007, at 2:40 AM, stephen white wrote:
On 29/12/2007, at 5:33 AM, Allan Doyle wrote:
Perhaps the most obvious watering and fertilizing of the neo-SDI
bits would be in the area of freeing up more data for the neo-geo
"kids" to play with.
The "neo" part makes me gag... it makes me think of Indiana Jones
exploring some tomb of VRML, collecting the baubles and trinkets of
thousands of projects that tried to define standards before coding,
then bursting out in a flourish of black leather trenchcoats and
pencil necks snapping in the breeze.
I think you have it backwards. ISO and to some extent OGC (although
they will deny it and point to the interoperability program) define
the standards before coding.
Let me amend that... OGC does have coding before the standard is
issued. But the standard can change between the coding and the
issuing, and there really should be more real-world use in the IETF
sense before the standard is real. Right now, the situation as it is
leads to some specs that see a lot of use and others that are really
not picked up at all without a lot of additional work.
I'm not big on the term "neo", either, but we seem to be stuck with
it until someone comes up with a better one.
Allan
--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
