Responding quickly to Andrew: Again back to semantics, depends on what is meant by exclusive. The event was a "specialist meeting", in the style of previous NCGIA specialist meetings (google them) --also co-branded as a Vespucci spec meeting (see below)-- whereby the sponsor(s) publishes an open call for interest in participating --each candidate submitting a 'position paper'--and then some committee selects 30-40 (depending on available funds) people who it thinks will create good chemistry and be able to generate 'researchable questions'...to define the research agenda to some extent.
The sponsors covered meeting facility cost, coffees, lunches, a dinner, and some travel costs for some participants. So it's clear that they would decide who attends. Again, the 40+ person limit was based on funding and on the optimal meeting size for plenary discussions + 3 break-out groups. The presence of quite a few "names" (your super-elite) is also not an accident, as the organisers obviously try to encourage certain people to apply. We (NCGIA+ others) have organised dozens of these meetings over the past 20 years: the formula is quite clear. The VGI meeting was co-branded as a Vespucci Initiative specialist meeting because that initiative is a group of academic+business professionals trying (successfully) to bring back the spirit and the warm+fuzzy feeling of past summers schools and specialist meetings, and in fact aims to create a semi-permanent academy...a comfortable place where researchers of all types can gather, hang-out, bounce ideas off others, ...take sabbatical breaks, etc. A place where junior+senior people live, eat+drink, and discuss/debate as equals. The next Vespucci spec meeting will be 15-16 June, on a farm in Tuscany. Topic: "Virtual globes: opportunities for GI Science or Game Over?". The Call will go out fairly soon. Cheers, Mike Andrew Turner said: 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) ------- Michael Gould Centro de Visualización Interactiva www.cevi.uji.es Dept. Information Systems (LSI), Universitat Jaume I, 12071 Castellón, Spain email: gould (at) lsi.uji.es // email2: mgould (at) opengeospatial.org research group www.geoinfo.uji.es // personal www.mgould.com AGILE www.agile-online.org Vespucci Summer Institute www.vespucci.org Erasmus Mundus: Master in Geospatial Technologies www.mastergeotech.info -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: jueves, 03 de enero de 2008 21:00 To: [email protected] Subject: Geowanking Digest, Vol 50, Issue 5 Send Geowanking mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Geowanking digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: goodchild VGI paper (Sean Gillies) 2. Re: goodchild VGI paper (Andrew Turner) 3. Re: goodchild VGI paper (Anselm Hook) 4. Re: goodchild VGI paper (P Kishor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:11:00 -0700 From: Sean Gillies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] goodchild VGI paper To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Thanks, Puneet, I'd been waiting for a summary like that. Did anybody bring up the topic of compulsory geographic information collection? GPS tracking of criminal offenders, the (failed) California proposal to mandate GPS for auto mileage tracking, etc? I'm not an advocate of either, just curious. Sean P Kishor 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. > > Here is my summary of the two days of meeting. I hope this helps > capture what happened in that "VGI-dubbing" session -- > > Workshop on Volunteered Geographic Information > Dec 13-14, 2007 > Upham Hotel, Santa Barbara, CA > > Approximately 30 participants. The participant list and contributed > issues papers are available at > http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/participants.html > > Presentations ranged from smart sensors for solving global problems > (think cell phones that transmit geocoded ambient information, digital > traces that we leave everywhere we go such a while swiping a subway > card, crossing a traffic light, working at a wifi hotspot, or talking > on the cellphone [1] to GPS units that can be extended with low-cost > measurement devices: for example, GPS that not only records water > locations, but also measures water quality [2]) to VGI from the > grassroots where citizens contribute and fill in the gaps that the > government can't or won't [3]. OpenStreetMap was presented as a > specific case of organized VGI [4] to personalized driving routes [5] > VGI implies connectivity. > > Waldseem|ller map was shown as one of the first documented examples of > VGI. In today's world, while a formal naming process for placenames > exists, technology makes it possible to have multiple names for a > single location. VGI itself is described by many different terms: > user-generated content/collective intellegence/crowdsourcing/asserted > information. Whatever it is called, it leads to empowerment of > millions who are untrained and have no authority otherwise. VGI leads > to non-uniform coverage as only "interesting" places tend to get > covered, and depends on web search engines to allow us to find it. > There are three types of sensors: inert or fixed; carried on moving > objects; and human beings. A key trait of VGI is that humans act as > sensors. This is really "citizen science" in action, and some of its > examples are the Christmas bird count and Project GLOBE. Some possible > research questions to consider are: Why do people do this? Is it > self-promotion (exhibitionism, retaining "ownership" of contributed > data); altruism; a desire to fill gaps in the available data; or > sharing with friends? Studying the range of authority and assertion, > the potential for subversion of information, and the review process > which may or may not be localized [6]. > > Almost 80% of all decisions are based on spatial information. Like in > any decision-making, information loops exist in geographic information > based decision-making as well. Characterizing VGI quality: > completeness, consistency. Notions of place, discovering VGI, > integrating VGI and GI, grounding semantics, modeling trust and > reputation, liability. Metaphors for web interaction, incentives, > social semiosis with VGI. Scaling the loops: from geeks to everybody, > from GPS tracks and images to rich data and services, from > disconnected loops to interfaced loops, from a few big social networks > to many small ones [7]. > > There is room for both VGI and authoritative GI, for different > purposes as well as to validate the former against the latter. One way > to think about it is that VGI is "action driven" while GI is "process > driven." VGI is basically observational assertions and metadata about > such assertions are very important [8]. I offered Amazon's "Real > Name" feature as an example of metadata about assertors. ESRI also > demonstrated their distributed GIS platform that allows loosely > coupled authors and users, mashups, and use of standard APIs with > ArcGIS as a system for authoring, serving and using VGI/AGI. ArcGIS > server has a crawl-able, KML-tagged "Services Explorer" [9] Jack > summarized with his observations on the entire workshop. He commented > on GIS and VGI relationship how can GIS users use VGI data? How does > GIS support VGI? Does VGI have the promise of SDI? How can we mine VGI > data for experts use? VGI benefits greatly from GIS concepts spatial > referencing system, visualization and query tools, web servers and > services, shared data bases. What would GIS professionals say about > VGI? Well, a good basemap is important, data models are important, > standard workflows to create, maintain, edit and manage data are > important, good geographic data requires a lot of work, spatial > analysis modeling requires consistent data models, VGI observation > data and assertions are valuable but how do we organize and integrate? > (Spatial data mining, ETL) Six types of geographic knowledge: geog > data, data models, geoprocessing models, geospatial workflows, > metadata, maps and visualization. Distinction between amateur and > professional systems: LA street lights, NESA street lights (Denmark, > allows neighbors to dim their street lights), DHS security, NYC 311, > BLM surveys, WWF Forest Watch. > > Google asserted that we are sitting on the long tail of geographic > data (breadth: how many places we know; depth: how much do we know > about each of those places). Google has counted seven million "My > Maps" instances, 300 million Google Earth activations, more than > 50,000 API sites, and estimates 1000 human lifetimes spent looking at > satellite photos. They call this the emergence of a geoweb, and are > working on creating a new geoweb search [10]. > National Geographic is geoenabling its content. They demonstrated Meta > Lens, a web based platform for managing geo-enabled content and talked > about LandScope America (to be launched in 11 months) in partnership > with NatureServe. NG believes that while we are in great shape as far > as imagery is concerned, the GIS data are spotty albeit very rich. It > needs to be better supported and aggregated. While GIS data are in a > pretty good shape at small scales and getting better at very large > scales, VGI might help fill in the "gap in the map" in between small > and very large scales [11]. > > Harvard is embarking on creating an "Africa Map," a one-stop shopping > for Africa continent base maps, online atlas and index, a gateway to > more specific data searches across multiple systems, search > non-spatial visual data, and a repository for Africa research > projects. There is a lot of data on Africa, but not many know about > it. Africa has been mapped by colonial powers for over a hundred > years. Most of the continent is LandSat (not very good imagery). > Russians have the best mapping of Africa. [12] > > Don Cooke observed that users of geographic information are two orders > of magnitude greater after Google Earth than before [13]. > > I gave a presentation on the Science Commons Open Data Mark. Last > Thursday this was still an "upcoming data mark" which became official > three days later! Some of you may know that I have been involved in > this initiative since May's Brazil workshop on open access and the > subsequent follow-up in Paris in September. The Paris workshop was > really where most of the ideas of the Data Mark were crystallized, so > I have been able to develop a presentation that I am going around > giving wherever I can. I will continue to refine that presentation and > offer it online sometime soon. > > Some of the many, many Research Questions: what are the researchable > questions? What disciplines should be involved? What are the roles of > the academies, private sector, agencies, public? What is the legal > status/ownership of VGI? What points of view are missing? What > activities might maintain this momentum? What might be done to > publish, reach wider audiences? > > The findings of the workshop will be published. The final outlet is > not determined, but it might be a special issue of a suitable journal > such as the Journal of SDI Research (IJSDIR) or the GeoJournal. > > [1] Sarah Williams. Spatial Information Design Laboratory, Columbia University > [2] Rajan Gupta. Los Alamos National Labs > [3] Sarah Elwood. University of Washington; David Tulloch. Rutgers > University; Morgan Bearden. The National Map, USGS > [4] Steve Coast. OpenStreetMap > [5] John Krumm. Microsoft. > [6] Mike Goodchild. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [7] Werner Kuhn. University of Muenster > [8] Jack Dangermond. ESRI > [9] David Maguire. ESRI > [10] Lior Ron. Google > [11] Allen Carroll. National Geographic > [12] Ben Lewis. Harvard Center for Geographic Analysis > [13] Don Cooke. TeleAtlas > > On 1/3/08, Andrew Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anyone that attended the super-elite and private VGI-dubbing >> discussion in December at UCSB want to enlighten us all on various >> interesting matters that were discussed? >> >> http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/ >> >> >> On Jan 3, 2008 12:53 PM, michael gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> By the way, although Goodchild's GeoJournal article is not so accessible, a >>> similar version *is* available at >>> >>> >>> >>> http://ijsdir.jrc.it/editorials/goodchild.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Michael Gould >>> >>> Centro de Visualizacisn Interactiva www.cevi.uji.es >>> >>> Dept. Information Systems (LSI), Universitat Jaume I, 12071 Castellsn, Spain >>> >>> email: gould (at) lsi.uji.es // email2: mgould (at) opengeospatial.org >>> >>> research group www.geoinfo.uji.es // personal www.mgould.com >>> >>> AGILE www.agile-online.org >>> >>> Vespucci Summer Institute www.vespucci.org >>> >>> Erasmus Mundus: Master in Geospatial Technologies www.mastergeotech.info >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Geowanking mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Andrew Turner >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 42.2774N x 83.7611W >> http://highearthorbit.com Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA >> Introduction to Neogeography - http://oreilly.com/catalog/neogeography >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Geowanking mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking >> >> > > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:17:26 -0500 From: "Andrew Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] goodchild VGI paper To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:39:53 -0800 From: "Anselm Hook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] goodchild VGI paper To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hm, half the people at that event are on this list. 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. - 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 > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:59:56 -0500 From: "P Kishor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] goodchild VGI paper To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 End of Geowanking Digest, Vol 50, Issue 5 ***************************************** _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
