I agree that neither OsGEO nor the communities are meant to reproduce such full featured proprietary architectures. I think thay should point to give a strong, common, backgorund to even enable (someone) to build richer, integrated platforms. I know it's a hard target, and something is going on with this (ie the cartographic library), but it would help a lot to guarantee a low level concistency between the softwares. Ok, I'm talking for the C/C++ side of the world, but it's the same for the Java one. A good exemple for the latter is the integration of SextanteGIS inside the major projects (uDig, OpenJUMP, JGrass, Gvsig, etc.).
giovanni 2009/9/15 Michael P. Gerlek <[email protected]> > Thinking aloud, a possible contrarian view: > > A goal like "to produce a comprehensive suite of tools [that do X or Y]..." > doesn't likely fit with OSGeo's broad membership and interests. We are an > umbrella organization representing a number of projects, each with its own > unique goals and agendas. It is unlikely OSGeo would be able to produce a > specific tool just because (hypothetically) the Board says we should: open > source folks often don't take top-down direction well, unless it meets their > own personal needs and agendas. > > Which is not to say that an analytical tool suite is a bad idea, just that > it seems unlikely to be a worthy goal at that level of the hierarchy. > > -mpg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:discuss- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of "René A. Enguehard" > > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 2:35 PM > > To: OSGeo Discussions > > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Next 5 years for OSGeo > > > > What I'd like to see within the next 5 years would be more analytical > > tools. Most of the projects in OSGeo are very much enablers: they put > > the facilities in place for people to program their own tools. However, > > as I have noticed over the years, people are reluctant to move to open > > source implementations of geospatial software because they are, in > > effect, losing capabilities. Yes, there is still the potential for the > > same capabilities to be put back in, but the fact remains they just > > aren't there. For example, I have never seen any MCDA, PCA, HotSpot > > Analysis, CART or neural network tools in open source packages. If we > > were to produce a comprehensive suite of tools offering the standard > > analytical tools as well as some more advanced ones, then these > > proprietary offerings wouldn't look as appealing. Moreover, if we had a > > consolidated toolset which could be used on a multitude of project we > > would not have to re-invent the wheel for each separate project. > > Currently, proprietary software generally offers advanced analytic > > capability out-of-the-box and open source software does not. I see this > > as a bit of a stumbling block. > > > > Another thing, and I was chatting about this in the lab today, is that > > for particular needs, open source implementations of geospatial > > software > > generally don't have much to offer. The generic capabilities are there, > > or at least enabled for others to program, but special-needs cases > > there > > is not much. The example used today in the lab was CARIS HIPS or SIPS. > > What, if anything, exists in the open source community that could come > > close to the processing capabilities of this? > > > > Still another area with a lack of development is 3D and 4D modeling / > > rendering / analysis, something like ESRI ArcGlobe with the 3D Analyst > > package or Myriax Eonfusion. There has been very little work in these > > domains which are of particular interest to me. Perhaps the amount of > > people working in these areas is much smaller than the amount of people > > using something more like general analytic capabilities, but it is an > > area that "needs work" nonetheless. > > > > The point, and I'd like to make this clear, is not the I'm bemoaning > > the > > lack of features and projects in the open source community. I think > > OSGeo and the open source community have done a tremendous job and > > should feel, rightfully, proud at what they have accomplished. However, > > when asked what I'd like to see on the agenda for OSGeo, this is it. > > I'd > > like to see a hard push towards analytics to make the various projects > > we have to offer more directly useful to the average GIS user. In the > > end, it's really about market penetration. The more useful open source > > software is, the better a "deal" it looks like to outsiders and the > > more > > people we'll attract. > > > > Please note: I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, IANAL, > > just > > my two cents, your mileage may vary, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. > > > > Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote: > > > Hi everyone, a recent chat I was asked about our vision for OSGeo > > over > > > the next 3 and 5 years. I'd really like to hear thoughts on the > > matter > > > and pool a few of the ideas together for further discussions amongst > > > committees, projects, chapters and the board. > > > > > > It's also a good way for the board nominees in the upcoming election > > to > > > get a sense of where other members are thinking these days. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > Tyler > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
