On 1/3/08, Anselm Hook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hm, half the people at that event are on this list.
exactly... not very super elite nor private, no? No forum can accommodate everyone under the planet -- you go to some you sit out on others. > > I wonder how much discussion of predictive modeling there was? I > still don't see very much of this except for hydrologic or sediment > flow analysis. There's very little modeling of whole systems. Every single paper or presentation submitted or presented there is on the VGI website (except for mine -- my presentation was very different from my position paper -- my presentation was on the Science Commons Data Mark, and I am still polishing it. Will put it up soon as it is ready). Has been there for a couple of months now. None of that is behind any paywall. We have to recognize that everyone has different motivations, different beasts to feed. Academics have their own beasts to feed -- they have to publish in journals that are peer-reviewed because it furthers their careers. There was a show of hands at the end of the workshop on where to publish the findings, and overwhelming majority was for the Int'l Journal for SDI Research because it is, while peer-reviewed, completely open and free for anyone to access. Others will publish in Geojournals and the like, driven by their personal or institutional mandates and motives. Who are we to judge. The bottom-line is, they are making an attempt to reach out to the open source world, putting out every piece of relevant literature in the open for everyone to access. Sure, there will be missteps, but on the whole, we are moving toward an environment of openness and cooperation that will benefit everyone. It behooves us to be gracious in acknowledging even the small steps. > > - a > > > On Jan 3, 2008 11:17 AM, Andrew Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2008 1:41 PM, P Kishor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > > > > Perhaps you don't care too much about the relations between the open > > > source community and the "super elite and private VGI-dubbing" group > > > that met at Santa Barbara, but, if you do, please note that statements > > > like this are needlessly alienating. > > > > > > The meeting was well announced in various forums, including, I > > > believe, on Geowanking. The meeting was open to everyone who submitted > > > a position paper and application and got selected -- they had about > > > 35-40 folks from all over the spectrum -- private industry (ESRI, > > > Teleatlas, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo...), academia (too many to list), > > > open source (myself, Steve Coast...), government (well, at least US > > > govt. -- CIA, NGIA, CERL, Los Alamos National Labs), non-profit > > > (National Geographic...). I don't consider myself super elite nor > > > private, yet I was there. This was indeed the first, afaik, attempt by > > > academia to recognize this "phenomenon" that we, in the open source > > > community, have been living for the past many years. Nevertheless, it > > > just seems bad form to disabuse or denigrate this initiative in any > > > way whatsoever. Glib criticism is just that, nothing more. > > > > I apologize, my query was mis-interpreted. It was semi-tongue-in-cheek > > jibing - at least in the specific words used. I was asking for an > > summary, but I will offer the alluded to, non-glib criticism. > > > > I did think of the workshop as fairly 'exclusive' as opposed to > > 'inclusive', being that it was limited in audience size and required > > approval by a committee (of 2?) to attend. This does in fact make it > > 'private'. I can understand reasons why this may be beneficial, at > > least to promote a quality meeting, but at least admit that was the > > reason. It was my own fault in submitting after the deadline and being > > told the workshop was full. > > > > And not super-elite? Look at the list of attendees you summarized, > > bunch of super-dupers in Geo world! :) (and not in a bad way). And > > every participant is affiliated with a large institution (yes, even > > Steve with OSM) > > > > > > > > Here is my summary of the two days of meeting. I hope this helps > > > capture what happened in that "VGI-dubbing" session -- > > > > > > > I really do appreciate the very comprehensive summary. So far, the > > endeavor had felt kind of like a "academia now deigns to acknowledge > > this emergent behavior" (as you inferred) and, at least speaking with > > in my experience in academia, seeks to affix a new label to it. Other > > articles/blogs have issued the same sentiment. Was there any > > discussion of the differences between "Volunteered" and > > "User-Generated" GI, because they are not the same thing, but there is > > meaning in the distinction. > > > > I hope and look forward to more open discussion and presentation > > around this topic and products from the workshop (and not just a $32 > > per digital copy article from GeoJournal. :) - We don't all belong to > > research institutes or large companies that have unlimited access. ) > > > > Anyways, I'll curtail my glibness in future criticisms ;) > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > > -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ Summer 2007 S&T Policy Fellow, The National Academies http://www.nas.edu/ _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
