IL -
As a rookie on XML it sounds simple (and increasingly loud)... use XML and (most of) the GIS data sharing issues goes away...? And topically to our list and if I get Bill's request right, a XMLed workspace, wouldn't that be a XLM managing and defining a collection of XMLs...? Interesting? I am also curious about your alert regarding the XML vocabulary between the "<>"s. Is this a normalization issue or a fixed dictionary one? At one early date in yester years, when both MapX and MapObjects were only 1.0s, I/we were impressed in how closely either's vocabularies were alike. Not prefect but enough to suggest a common code vocabulary (Yeah, right, good luck!)? That foot note on my experience with assumptions of simplicity aside, I guess my excitement is lifted with this XML-stuff. It seems to offer improved methods to ease the endless quest for no-cost and other background layers. If there is such a benefit to a geoXML outline for information distribution, meaning easier and less complex IO conversions, better metadata of all sorts including spatial indices, as well as open readability, then could not "our" data quest issues evolve to TerraServer-like XML-automations? How these tabular geoXML lists are then indexed to the corresponding TAB, SHP, and other geographic objects alerts my curiosity. I see this XML future as a certainty but for this boy, it remains yet a poorly understood technology shift. Thanks for your insight as to where a value might lurk. I will keep watching. MidNight Mapper Aka neil -----Original Message----- From: SCISOFT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: XML and MapInfo Bill / Neil Bill asked "has anyone here developed an XML DTD or xmlschema to describe a MapInfo layout?" and "In other words, has anyone attempted to convert a workspace to XML?" I'm surprised there hasn't been any cross-talk on this. Surely the .NET version of MapInfo will be using the GML (XML recommendation for GIS) from the OpenGIS Consortium? It has been adopted by several vendors. Particularly, it's used in part by webmap servers. Version 3.0 has been released and ratified I think. A couple of MapInfo people have adopted XML for the metadata descriptions. I guess you know them - I think one is a regular correspondent in MapInfo-L. The easiest thing of all is to decide on a DTD or XML Schema for the Metadata and for the Workspace. As with all XML, the first decision is to agree on the vocabulary to be used (the things between the angled brackets - like the pair <mapinfo> </mapinfo> ). My guess is that MapInfo Corporation has long since decided on both of those. The implementation of the .TAB format in XML is also pretty simple - after all, it's just a bit of fairly standard text - !table !version 300 !charset WindowsLatin1 Definition Table Type NATIVE Charset "WindowsLatin1" Fields 11 AREA Decimal (16, 3) ; PERIMETER Decimal (16, 3) ; CITIESX020 Decimal (11, 0) ; FEATURE Char (80) ; IDNUM Decimal (5, 0) ; CAPCODE Decimal (2, 0) ; NAME Char (48) ; FIPS Char (5) ; FIPS55 Char (5) ; POP Decimal (11, 0) ; STID Char (7) ; The nice thing about XML is that (for software that supports it) there may be redundant or not-used definitions within it. Particularly, this applies to the (new from v6) .WOR workspace that includes printer information - Set Window FrontWindow() Printer Name "HP LaserJet 1100 (MS)" Orientation Portrait Copies 1 Papersize 9 I guess what I am getting around to articulating is that it is necessary for a user community or software developer to first agree on the vocabulary (tag names, and what they mean - very precisely) and then it is not a very hard job to describe the various data structures for the 'components' of MapInfo's file formats. You / we / someone should consult with the software vendor / manufacturer (eg, if it's Bill Thoen who is going to make some software, using MapX for example, then it is probably to his advantage to consult with others). My guess is that MapInfo Corporation has decided what it is going to do (though with XML It is not a hard job to change the terminology / vocabulary, the data structures may be set in stone already). There's no point really in developing a suite of MBX for 'older' MapInfo versions - what for? The area that's crying out for XML-ifying is data exchange, though - and that has been reasonably addressed by some 3rd-party data exchange software developers / vendors. The great thing about the use of XML Schemas is that they are self-describing - the data structure and the data are explicit within the file (as you would know, not necessarly the same file, but explicitly by reference URI or by an include, etc). So, Bill - expand on what you want to do with XML in relation to GIS or MapInfo files or software. IL Thomas GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia
