yeah, just using it as an example of a GOTS code-sharing agreement, not suggesting they do that. In fact, it might only be available to federal agencies, the FAR being what it is, not sure. But likely other states have something they can share.
And I love GeoIQ, not casting aspersions. ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Wolf <[email protected]> To: Bucci, David G Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sun Jan 16 17:33:00 2011 Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Geowanking] Web-based geoservices for state government > newest USGS National Map is based on a project that was developed at NGA Actually, the Palanterra Viewer would end up being a gateway drug for the Esri kool-aid. It is an interesting option because it's loaded with features. But that's one of the biggest complaints about the Palanterra-based National Map - it's more complicated than it needs to be. GeoIQ (ala Geocommons) has become a case study in user-centered design: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470998245,descCd-tableOfContents.html While Joshua and Puneet are in most ways correct - the real question should be "what do you want to do?" I read the original problem of moving from an 70s parcel system to a 21st century system as "What would really define a 21st century parcel system"? And because the question is being asked here, I feel like the underlying question is "What is feasible for me on my budget?" -Eric -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- Eric B. Wolf 720-334-7734 On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Bucci, David G <[email protected]> wrote: > Btw, didn’t say this, but part of why I asked is I was wondering if any > really good hard looks have been done that factor in the emerging (buzzword > alert) cloud-based options. > > > > From: Bucci, David G > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:37 PM > To: 'Joshua Lieberman'; Puneet Kishor > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Re: [Geowanking] Web-based geoservices for state government > > > > GOTS = Government Off The Shelf – states have access to a pool of software > to use as a basis for systems via certain channels. E.g., at the federal > level, the newest USGS National Map is based on a project that was developed > at NGA. > > > > Not disagreeing that technical product selection isn’t the beginning, need > to define your goals, build your ecosystem – but that’s what the OP asked > about … > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joshua Lieberman > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:27 PM > To: Puneet Kishor > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Geowanking] Web-based geoservices for state > government > > > > Still not really asking the right questions. Building a digital parcel > ecosystem is much larger than web platform tech choices. Otherwise it > becomes moot without the content. > > Josh Lieberman > > On Jan 16, 2011, at 14:15, Puneet Kishor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Bucci, David G wrote: > > Not an Apple fan, AM an SU fan, so I’ll play orange for this round. Of > different product selections (FOSS, COTS, GOTS in this case, I suppose) to > use as the base for the project that was described, was what I was thinking. > > > > The question is still too broad, too generic. Selections and technology are > secondary. What you want to accomplish is primary. If there is something > that a software/technology cannot do, and *that* is exactly what you need to > do, then you *have* to look elsewhere. > > > > How about restricting the scope of the inquiry -- perhaps a tradeoff between > different map servers, or between different spatial data storage mechanisms, > heck, perhaps even between Windows or Unix or, ahem, cough, Macs. Just > trying to figure out the difference between FOSS, COTS, GOTS (I have no idea > what the heck GOTS is, but I gots some COTS and FOSS) without specifying the > capabilities one wishes to deliver is a very amorphous exercise. > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Puneet Kishor > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] EXTERNAL: Re: Web-based geoservices for state > government > > > > > > On Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Bucci, David G wrote: > > Stepping back, does anyone know of any published studies where somebody > (without an ax to grind) really surveyed the marketplace and did a tradeoff > analysis? > > .. > > > > > > Everyone has an axe to grind, no matter how blunt the axe might be. > > > > That said, analysis of tradeoff between what and what, asked the apple of > the orange? > > > > -- > Puneet Kishor > > Sent with Sparrow > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
