2012/4/9 Iván Sánchez Ortega <[email protected]>: > On Lunes, 9 de abril de 2012 19:11:29 Eric Wolf escribió: >> I suspect that this very conversation was what originally spurned Frank >> Warmerdam to write the first version of GDAL/OGR. Instead of a universal >> file format, why not just build a universal translator? > > For me, "interoperability" means "I can run ogr2ogr against it" :-D > > All hail Frank!
While very interesting and instructive I'd like to focus the discussion a little bit. About the use case: It's simply targeted to what Shapefile is being (or was) used. Andrew Turner wrote: > The best format I've seen anywhere that > every tool uses and is easy and powerful? CSV Did you mean CSV + WKT (to stick on the geospatial topic)? Tom wrote: > SQLite by itself has a ton of potential... > Spatialite, while nice, is problematic to talking about SQLite because its > GEOS dependency, restrictive licensing, and private development strategy GEOS dependency: I would ignore the fact that there are libraries involved. I'm concentrating on a single binary format just the sake of this use case. I say this knowing how nice it is to have a library out of the box which gives us spatial operators. But its important that the encoding is at the focus, since not everybody likes to include C libraries in his code. That's also a killer argument against the Esri proposal for FGDB (letting programmers use ot only through their library). Restrictive licensing: You mean MPL/GPL/LGPL is too restrictive? Private development: That's the current show stopper. That's why I proposed it to become an OSGEO project. That's also where the "SQLite Provider" comes in but which I found only used (half-hartedly?) in FDO. -S. _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
