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 single format for every purpose will lead to noone good. I >would separate concerns between what can be expected of an interchange format >and of a backend storage facility. >For the former, GML and BXML fit just right. BXML is meant to bring some >benefits over the verbosity, transfer size and handling of GML and other XML >data languages, but certainly can't do as well as a proper RDBMS or such in >data integrity, transaction atomicity/isolation, etc. >For the same reason one should never use shapefile for concurrent >transactions, even if it may perform well enough for read only access. > >On Saturday 17 November 2007 08:08:08 pm Luis W. Sevilla wrote: > > >>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 support this encoding, only implementors must add support to >>it. At gvSIG we're currently working both on a low level library for >>reading and writing GML 3.* + other GML alike formats, disacopled of our >>object model, and a java port of this cubewerx BXML encoder/decoder. >> >> >slight correction, the ongoing java bxml project is in no way a port of the >cubewerx one. Afaik, we're going to support the full spec while cwxml does >not. > > >>We >>hope to release early results by the end of 1st term next year. Maybe the >>way of push the standard (both OGC and ISO) it's by simply implement >>parsers and writers, and use it a widely as possible. >> >> >> >Luis++ > >Gabriel > > >> greetings >> Luis >> >>Paul Spencer wrote: >> >> >>>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 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, David wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>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 adoption of GML... Was GML not >>>>>supposed >>>>>to be the NEXT interchange fomrat? Perhaps this is a good >>>>>discussion to >>>>>include the GML gurus in. The whole discussion of going with a binary >>>>>GML format makes sense and GML is already used for many web mapping >>>>>(feature) services. It sounds like a duplication of GML to me... >>>>>Unless >>>>>someone can offer a direct compare and contrast between the concept >>>>>here >>>>>and the GML/Binary GML concept. >>>>>In either case being able to convert to and from GML would be a >>>>>necesity >>>>>for wide adoption IMHO. >>>>>Another thought is to encourage some of the proprietary formats to >>>>>open >>>>>up. What would it take to get ESRI on board to open up the format >>>>>(open >>>>>as in free speech). What about other non-open standards? Once it's >>>>>open >>>>>then we can bring the SHP format to modern day useage. Surely much of >>>>>the format could be salvaged. >>>>>Besides, if you want wide adoption of an open format then why not >>>>>go for >>>>>those players who hold greatest market share. >>>>>Some thoughts. >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor >>>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 09:53 >>>>>To: OSGeo Discussions >>>>>Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open data >>>>>format >>>>>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 >>>>>ready use >>>>>by products such as MapServer has continued to cement Shapefile as the >>>>>format to use. All this is in spite of Shapefile's inherent drawbacks, >>>>>particularly in the area of attribute data management. >>>>>What if we came up with a new and improved data format -- call it >>>>>"Open >>>>>Shapefile" (extension .osh) -- that would be completely Free, >>>>>single-file based (instead of the multiple .shp, .dbf, .shx, etc.), >>>>>and >>>>>based on SQLite, giving the .osh format complete relational data >>>>>handling capabilities. We would require a new version of Shapelib, >>>>>improved language bindings, make it the default and preferred >>>>>format for >>>>>MapServer, and provide seamless and painless import of regular .shp >>>>>data >>>>>into .osh for native rendering. Its adoption would be quick in the >>>>>open >>>>>source community. The non-opensource community would either not give a >>>>>rat's behind for it, but it wouldn't affect them... >>>>>they would still work with their preferred .shp until they learned >>>>>better. By having a completely open and Free single-file based, >>>>>built on >>>>>SQLite, fully relational dbms capable spatial data format, it would be >>>>>positioned for continued improvement and development. >>>>>Is this too crazy? >>>>>-- >>>>>Puneet Kishor >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Discuss mailing list >>>>>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>>>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Discuss mailing list >>>>>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>>>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Discuss mailing list >>>>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>>> >>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> >>>|Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | >>> >>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> >>>|Chief Technology Officer | >>>|DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | >>> >>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Discuss mailing list >>>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Discuss mailing list >>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss