All, I see this Parcel piece as a foundational item that other things can be added to over time. It introduces most of the problems that are likely to ocuur over time with regard to other datasets all at once, while still keeping the focus tight. We went througha simialr effort here in the Twin City Metro area almost 10 years aga, with the same goal for our Metro area, a seamless Parcel dataset across the metro area. There have been recent calls to extend this capability to the rest of the state of Minnesota.
Yes, the hard part is getting the updates in a timely manner. It's actually harder to just get folks to agree. We went round and round on what was supposed be included in such a dataset as attributes. There is a long history to our local effort of setting up a regional Parcel dataset, too long to detail here. I can point folks at the right local individuals about data structure and what has and hasn't worked. Just get back to me directly. bobb >>> "Bucci, David G" <[email protected]> wrote: 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 ( http://www.sparrowmailapp.com ) _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/lis tinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
