Hi again, Gabi,
shouldn't it be a good compromise to have an spatial index added to
GML+BXML ?
greetings
Luis
Gabriel Roldán wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>nice thread, I've went roughly through half of it yet, so my concern could be
>already addressed, apologies if so.
>
>It seems to me a sin
Thanks for the note. I've forwarded to the person in charge of the
project for study.
greetings
Luis
Raj Singh wrote:
> Luis, good to hear support for a GML version of Peter Vretanos' BXML.
> When we were working on the WFS Simple API last year Peter and I did
> some more work on it h
Luis, good to hear support for a GML version of Peter Vretanos' BXML.
When we were working on the WFS Simple API last year Peter and I did
some more work on it here:
http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/189
(schema and examples)
I think it's slightly different (simpler and geometry harmonized with
Hi,
+1 for GML with BXML encoding as next open standard. GML 3.* with his
ability to be 'profiled' seems to be on the base of almost all and
every OGC norm being proposed on last 2-3 years. As Rob Atkinson said to
me, BXML may be an encoding for GML, in a way no standard needs to be
modifyed to
dear all,
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 04:17:18PM -0500, Sampson, David wrote:
> Besides, if you want wide adoption of an open format then why not go for
> those players who hold greatest market share.
When is a format an open format? We know an "open license" can be one
complying to the OSI open licen
Cubewerx created a binary XML implementation that is open source.
They claim substantial benefits, so perhaps GML plus a binary XML
library could be an alternative?
http://www.cubewerx.com/web/guest/bxml
Cheers
Paul
On 15-Nov-07, at 5:21 PM, Lucena, Ivan wrote:
Sampson,
I am not a GML
Sampson,
I am not a GML guru and I don't know if a binary version exists already,
but I would imagine that HDF5 would be a excellent choice by its own
hierarchical nature. I mean, we can use GML as a schema to store the
data in binary format in the HDF5 format.
Best regards,
Ivan
Sampson,
Why not make it on the H2 database ;-) or Derby (both have been proposed
on the java lists recently); Seriously
choosing a language specific format is not the most fun idea.
Cheers,
Jody
So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
data. That it is open (albeit not Free) a
Alright,
Here are some other thoughts.
First off what about a open office (open base) type approach... This
mimmics the ESRI MSAccess approach and seams to work well for non server
environments. Also open office is a good environment for some basic
applications.
Next, what ever happened to the a
On 11/13/07, Frank Warmerdam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
> > So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
> > data. That it is open (albeit not Free) along with the deep and wide
> > presence of ESRI's products from the beginning of the epoch, it has
> > been
On Nov 13, 2007, at 6:42 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
o RDBMS style operations like SQL filtering, joins, etc.
o Get past all the shapefile limitations related to the .dbf format
(very
restricted data types, short attribute names, lots of other limits)
o Allow storing many layers in one file.
D]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher
Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:13 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 07:42:12AM -0800, Landon Blake wrote:
>
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 07:42:12AM -0800, Landon Blake wrote:
>
> You wrote: " that would be completely Free,
> single-file based (instead of the multiple .shp, .dbf, .shx, etc..."
>
> Is there a problem with a multiple file format? I have tinkered with
> some different binary file formats, and i
P Kishor wrote:
So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
data. That it is open (albeit not Free) along with the deep and wide
presence of ESRI's products from the beginning of the epoch, it has
been widely adopted. Existence of shapelib, various language bindings,
and re
All,
My two cents worth . . . .
Interesting thread, and timely too. I had a discussion yesterday
about using SDF as a neutral format. I'm kinda wondering though what
the end use something like this is intended for. Is it to store a
dataset by a user of for serving the data via the web
7:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OSGeo Discussions
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
Puneet,
You wrote: "Is this too crazy?"
I don't think this idea is crazy at all. In fact, I think it is a very
good idea. I do have a couple of com
this sounds like the SDF format, although I am not sure that SDF is
open source - there is an open source implementation as part of FDO (http://fdo.osgeo.org/fdosdf/index.html
)
Paul
On 13-Nov-07, at 9:52 AM, P Kishor wrote:
So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
Puneet,
You wrote: "Is this too crazy?"
I don't think this idea is crazy at all. In fact, I think it is a very
good idea. I do have a couple of comments, which you can read below:
You wrote: "What if we came up with a new and improved data format --
call it
"Open Shapefile" (extension .osh)..."
P Kishor wrote:
So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
data. That it is open (albeit not Free) along with the deep and wide
presence of ESRI's products from the beginning of the epoch, it has
been widely adopted. Existence of shapelib, various language bindings,
and re
Puneet:
I believe you've just described the SDF format (open, based on SQL
lite) that is currently in use by FDO / MapGuide.
Some info from a post from Jason Birch a while back:
"To bring us back to the start of this post, the one item on this
list that I think may get overlooked is suppor
20 matches
Mail list logo
