On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:52:06PM -0700, Robert Bray wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I agree and will see what I can do to make it happen. If we want wider
> adoption it may also be beneficial to see some kind of C/C++ access library
> created for the format. In the past I always felt the FDO Provider was
9:23 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open
data format
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 05:17:46PM -0800, Traian Stanev wrote:
> How about an OGR driver for SDF? No need to invent a new API when one already
> exists.
I think that was ex
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 05:17:46PM -0800, Traian Stanev wrote:
> How about an OGR driver for SDF? No need to invent a new API when one already
> exists.
I think that was exactly Bob's point: There is already an FDO driver for
SDF. If OGR is sufficient, I'm not entirely sure why FDO wouldn't be by
Traian Stanev wrote:
> How about an OGR driver for SDF? No need to invent a new API
> when one already exists.
Traian,
AFAIKU, that's the idea that triggered the debate
but it would be good if there is non-API specific library for SDF.
The the same library could be used by OGR, FDO, etc.
Cheers
: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
Robert Bray wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I agree and will see what I can do to make it happen. If we want wider
> adoption it may also be beneficial to see some kind of C/C++ access
> library created for the
Robert Bray wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I agree and will see what I can do to make it happen. If we want wider
> adoption it may also be beneficial to see some kind of C/C++ access
> library created for the format. In the past I always felt the FDO
> Provider was that library, but the masses seem to be te
that :)
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OSGeo Discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:18:42PM -0800, Robert Bray wrote:
> Is it an open format? ABSOLUTELY (we just never wrote a spec, but I am
> willing to get it done)
>
> All this said, I'd really like to understand everyones requirements for
> this new format. If SDF fits thats great, if not thats ok
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:discuss-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jo Walsh
>Sent: 18 November 2007 6:26 AM
>To: OSGeo Discussions
>Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
>data format
>
>dear Steve, all,
>On Tue, Nov 13, 2007
dear Steve, all,
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 05:24:55PM +, Steve Coast wrote:
> Real artists ship. For everyone else there's standards wanking.
As the origins of the word 'yardstick' suggest, size is relative,
and standards and wanking have always been intimately connected.
http://www.etymonline.c
Frank,
I was watching this PyTables video
[http://www.carabos.com/videos/pytables-1-intro] and one thought came to
my mind: HDF5 can easily be used to store and retrieve vector, raster
and attribute tables. We would need to standardize a schema tough.
Best regards,
Ivan
PS. I am not that I
Landon Blake wrote:
P.S. - This is probably a crazy idea, but has anyone ever considered
talking to ESRI about cooperating on an update Shapefile spec?
Landon,
I believe ESRI sees the "file based geodatabase" as filling roughly the
role that the Shapefile played in the ArcView 3.x days. Of co
2007 9:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On 11/14/07, David William Bitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I never (I think I never did) argued that
On 11/14/07, David William Bitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I never (I think I never did) argued that Shapefile is not open. I
> > argued that it is not Free. I could be wrong.
> >
> >
> > >
> Here's the open published specification:
> http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pd
> I find two problems with Shapefiles -- one, that it is not in public
> domain (I am not even sure of what licensing there is on it), and
> while ESRI is not likely to pull a Unisys on us, it just is
> philosophically better to free if possible.
I don't see this as an issue at all -- legally spe
>
>
> I never (I think I never did) argued that Shapefile is not open. I
> argued that it is not Free. I could be wrong.
>
> >
>
Here's the open published specification:
http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf
Do what you will with it. I don't know in this case what you imply by
On 11/14/07, Frank Warmerdam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
> > I find two problems with Shapefiles -- one, that it is not in public
> > domain (I am not even sure of what licensing there is on it), and
> > while ESRI is not likely to pull a Unisys on us, it just is
> > philosophicall
P Kishor wrote:
I find two problems with Shapefiles -- one, that it is not in public
domain (I am not even sure of what licensing there is on it), and
while ESRI is not likely to pull a Unisys on us, it just is
philosophically better to free if possible.
Puneet,
I think this is a red herring.
essage -
> From: "Michael P. Gerlek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "OSGeo Discussions" ;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,
:24 AM
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On 14-Nov-07, at 7:20 AM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
- optional coloring and styles, break values, rendering and
scale limits, persistent joins or relates, color ramp, ...
are things which are provided
On 11/14/07, Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:12:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I would just love to click open and see something nice, specially if
> > someone has already taken the time to make it beautiful.
> >
> > Think of it as the output of
On 14-Nov-07, at 7:20 AM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
- optional coloring and styles, break values, rendering and
scale limits, persistent joins or relates, color ramp, ...
are things which are provided by SLD and the like, which means that
you
really want SDF + WMC -- I don't think that t
.prj projection file and the .xml
metadata file.
Best regards,
Bart
--
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS, Open Source GIS
http://www.osgis.nl
- Oorspronkelijk bericht
Van: OSGeo Discussions
Naar: OSGeo Discussions
Onderwerp: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:12:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would just love to click open and see something nice, specially if
> someone has already taken the time to make it beautiful.
>
> Think of it as the output of a word processor instead of an editor.
> Excel vs. VisiCalc; and the
SDF faster than dbd: wow!
I think the SDF very much solves the issue as Puneet put it, but I will
add to the wish list a few things which may be optional but certainly
usefull and valuable as time saver:
- optional space for metadata,
- optional thumnails (in 2 sizes: thumb and browse)
- optional
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
> Regarding the suggestion that MapServer takes on this new format as
the
> primary format: I think this is way beyond the scope of
> > Regarding the suggestion that MapServer takes on this new format as
the
> > primary format: I think this is way beyond the scope of what OSGeo
should
> > be doing.
I agree with bitnerd. If the MapServer team thinks this is a valuable
and worthwhile format, they will adopt it at some point.
> > >>>
> > > >>> I think you need to decide if you want a tool or a data format. It
> > > >>> sounds like you are shooting more for a spatial database written
> > > >>> in the
> > > >>> C programming lan
7;t completely understand your
> > >>> goal.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> well, I am, frankly confused.
> > >>
> > >> I was quite convinced I wasn't describing a "tool" but was describing
> &g
the library, which happens to be written in C). In my
> >> mind, having the data format based on SQLite *format* for its
> >> relational attribute handling was the real winner. In that sense,
> >> perhaps I conflated the format and the tool. I am not well versed in
&
ain.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:35 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
Thanks everyone, for responding. Here is my &q
Landon wrote:
---
I really think you are going to run into problems using the "Shapefile"
as part of the trademark or name for any product not sold by ESRI. I
strongly recommend against this move.
---
I'm not a lawyer, but I really doubt that shapefile is unique enough to
b
t we utilize the
SQLite-compatible binary format for relational data handling, so that
SQLite-enabled spatial tools can access this new format.
And, put this format into public domain.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor
Sent: Tues
] On Behalf Of P Kishor
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:09 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On 11/13/07, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Puneet,
>
> You wrote: "Should be easy to transition
Landon Blake ha scritto:
> I really think you are going to run into problems using the "Shapefile"
> as part of the trademark or name for any product not sold by ESRI.
This can be easily be overcome by using "OpenShape".
I think this is a good idea, as it will make transition psychologically
smoo
e data are laid out, except that we utilize the
SQLite-compatible binary format for relational data handling, so that
SQLite-enabled spatial tools can access this new format.
And, put this format into public domain.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PR
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:35 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
Thanks everyone, for responding. Here is my "groundwork."
The new format --
- Should be fast. SQLite is plenty fast, and anything that simply
&quo
one more thing -- the new format should be the default format for a
very popular project like MapServer, yet, MapServer should be able to
import the normal Shapefile format seamlessly. This feature would be
crucial for rapid dissemination and adoption of such a format.
On 11/13/07, P Kishor <[EMAI
Thanks everyone, for responding. Here is my "groundwork."
The new format --
- Should be fast. SQLite is plenty fast, and anything that simply
"extends" the Shapefile format to inject relational capabilities
should be pretty fast. It should definitely be faster than a
geodatabase format (such as P
39 matches
Mail list logo
