Exactly.

It's been an interesting journey for me - coming from a hard-core software
development mindset and delving into the deepest levels of cartographic and
GIScience research in academia. I spend alot of time just scratching my head
over how things are done.

A major source of the head-scratching is because cartography and GIScience
(and thus GeoViz) typically come out of Geography. Departments of Geography
typically fall within Schools of Arts and Science and sometimes even within
a School of Social Science.

Within a typical university, the School of Engineering will maintain their
own IT support staff. The rest of the university is "ruled" by a more
general IT support staff. The more general IT support tends to have stricter
rules about what you can do with a computer. It makes a certain amount of
sense -and if you've ever had to do tech support, it's pretty clear.

-Eric

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:38 PM, R E Sieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Tell me about it. I'm currently developing a cyberinfrastructure for the
> humanities. No disrespect to the humanities but they don't know about
> computers. And it is a constant battle to get access.
>
> Renee
>
> Eric Wolf wrote:
> > You miss my point - it's not that the NSF reviewers lack appropriate
> > rights - it's that researchers outside of schools of engineering and
> > departments of computer science frequently fight battles with IT
> > security that can cause things not to work smoothly. I've experienced
> > it many times.
> >
> > I know it's hard to believe. I'm constantly dumb-founded by the inane
> > hurdles I have to go through in order to just do my work. I spent over
> > a decade in the private sector developing software. This is the kind
> > of problem that usually resolved in seconds outside of academia.
> > However, inside academia it's a constant battle. And just when you
> > thought you had everything working, someone changes policies and your
> > demo doesn't work.
> >
> > But as I think more about it, the real reason the NSF is asking for
> > stand-alone HTML is to provide a blind review process.
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Randy George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Eric,
> >
> >
> >
> >     But… isn't that a compelling reason to just provide a link?
> >
> >
> >
> >     The review committee only needs a  highspeed link, a computer with
> >     a sufficiently modern GPU, and a decent projector. All the
> >     installation is out of their hands. The link points at an SGI or
> >     Deep Blue or whatever AWS Hadoop, Beowulf  cluster … needed at the
> >     other end, no admin rights required.
> >
> >
> >
> >     randy
> >
> >
> >
> >     *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >     [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] *On Behalf Of *Eric Wolf
> >     *Sent:* Friday, June 13, 2008 11:00 AM
> >
> >     *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     *Subject:* Re: [Geowanking] National Science Foundation
> >     Visualization Challenge
> >
> >
> >
> >     One of the reasons for the limitations is to ensure that the
> >     content can be judged - but not because NSF lacks the facilities.
> >     If you've ever tried to say, get a development server set up in an
> >     academic environment outside of an engineering school or CompSci
> >     department, you'd know the challenges.
> >
> >     I'm currently dealing with this problem in my work. I'm supposed
> >     to be exploring ways to contribute to OGC specs on behalf of The
> >     National Map. To do this, I want to make code changes to servers
> >     and clients that implement OGC - like GeoServer and OpenLayers.
> >     But I'm not allowed to have admin or root access on my workstation.
> >
> >     Another possible reason is that NSF usually tries to use a blind
> >     review process. If they have to point a browser to your website,
> >     they know who created it.
> >
> >     -Eric Wolf
> >
> >     On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Randy George
> >     <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Renee,
> >
> >     Curious, I took a look at the NSF link. I would have guessed
> >     "interactive
> >     graphics" would fit geowanking more than "info graphics." I think
> >     you are
> >     right, though, about the winning entries. I wonder if it has
> >     something to do
> >     with NSF's limitations.
> >
> >     For example here is the acceptable formats list for media:
> >       "Interactive and Non-interactive Media:
> >            Preferred animation formats: NTSC Beta SP, DVC Pro.
> >            Digital formats such as QuickTime, Flash, AVI or MPEG are
> >     acceptable.
> >            Digital files should be copied to CD-ROM(s) or DVD."
> >
> >     Or this:
> >            "Q: May we use an online URL as an entry?
> >            A: No. We can't rely on Internet connections during the
> >     review/judging process. Save the relevant html and any associated
> >     media
> >     locally and then burn it to a CD-ROM or DVD."
> >
> >     Hmm ... Is this "Visualization Challenge" or challenged
> >     visualization? I
> >     thought interactive media would include internet, browser, portal,
> >     online
> >     communities, virtual 3D worlds, OGC WPS pipes etc. I somehow doubt
> >     it can
> >     fit on a cd-rom or dvd. What is HTML without httpd? Perhaps NSF
> >     could rent a
> >     more up-to-date venue for their review process with a reliable
> >     highspeed
> >     connection.
> >
> >     The judges appear stuck in an earlier media generation. Perhaps a
> >     case of
> >     Kuhn meets McLuhan? If NSF wants to stimulate innovation they should
> >     consider moving 'media' ahead a decade or two.
> >
> >     randy
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >     [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of R E Sieber
> >     Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:32 PM
> >     To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     Subject: [Geowanking] National Science Foundation Visualization
> >     Challenge
> >
> >     This may be of interest to some.
> >
> >     Science and engineering visualization challenge (National Science
> >     Foundation)
> >
> http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/scivis/index.jsp?id=challenge
> >
> >     Frankly, I find their winning entries uninspiring in terms of new
> >     technologies (e..g, look at their FAQs, which are incredibly snarky).
> >     However, winning in one of these categories -- I'm guessing the info
> >     graphics one would be right for geowankers -- would look very good on
> >     one's resume.
> >
> >     BTW, it is open to international entries.
> >
> >     Renee
> >
> >     Some of science's most powerful statements are not made in words.
> From
> >     the diagrams of DaVinci to Hooke's microscopic bestiary, the beaks of
> >     Darwin's finches, Rosalind Franklin's x-rays or the latest
> >     photographic
> >     marvels retrieved from the remotest galactic outback, visualization
> of
> >     research has a long and literally illustrious history. To
> >     illustrate is,
> >     etymologically and actually, to enlighten.
> >
> >     You can do science without graphics. But it's very difficult to
> >     communicate it in the absence of pictures. Indeed, some insights can
> >     only be made widely comprehensible as images. How many people
> >     would have
> >     heard of fractal geometry or the double helix or solar flares or
> >     synaptic morphology or the cosmic microwave background, if they
> >     had been
> >     described solely in words?
> >
> >     To the general public, whose support sustains the global research
> >     enterprise, these and scores of other indispensable concepts exist
> >     chiefly as images. They become part of the essential iconic
> >     lexicon. And
> >     they serve as a source of excitement and motivation for the next
> >     generation of researchers.
> >
> >     The National Science Foundation (NSF) and Science created the Science
> >     and Engineering Visualization Challenge to celebrate that grand
> >     tradition-and to encourage its continued growth. In a world where
> >     science literacy is dismayingly rare, illustrations provide the most
> >     immediate and influential connection between scientists and other
> >     citizens, and the best hope for nurturing popular interest.
> >     Indeed, they
> >     are now a necessity for public understanding of research
> developments:
> >     In an increasingly graphics-oriented culture, where people acquire
> the
> >     majority of their news from TV and the World Wide Web, a story
> >     without a
> >     vivid and intriguing image is often no story at all.
> >
> >     We urge you and your colleagues to contribute to the next competition
> >     and to join us in congratulating the winners.
> >
> >     Judges appointed by the National Science Foundation and the journal
> >     Science will select winners in each of five categories: photographs,
> >     illustrations, informational graphics, interactive media and
> >     non-interactive media. The winners will be published in a special
> >     section of the Sept. 26, 2008 issue of the journal Science and
> Science
> >     Online and on the NSF Web site. One of the winning entries will be on
> >     the front cover of Science. In addition, each finalist will receive a
> >     free, one-year print and on-line subscription to the journal
> >     Science and
> >     a certificate of appreciation.
> >
> >     Entries for 2008 are being solicited now. We urge all researchers and
> >     science communicators to participate in this unique and inspiring
> >     competition.
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Geowanking mailing list
> >     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Geowanking mailing list
> >     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-
> >     Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818
> >     PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Geowanking mailing list
> >     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-
> > Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818
> > PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geowanking mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>



-- 
-=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-
Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818
PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking

Reply via email to