I do think the agencies reasoning is not *too* off. They provide shapefiles
which are widely accessable but also .mdb files due to the lossiness of
shapefiles. A good solution would be to provide the data in GML format
which can avoid the lossiness of shapefiles and they seem to be moving
in that direction. We just need to provide gentle encouragement. The
telling point is that the .mdb files are essentially inaccessable outside
an ArcGIS environment.
Plus it seems that ESRI is moving away from .mdb files for reasons of
performance and the ridiculous file size limit of 2GB. The next
version of ArcGIS should already have an entirely proprietary
spatial database format, so MS Access-based storage will go down the
Avenue way ...
I believe this sort of unsteadiness is also a major concern with
proprietary solutions.
Benjamin
Best regards,
I am learning ;-) ...and I like it!
Thank you all,
Nikos
P.S. I suppose no "rough summary" of all this issues exists. Or does
it?
_______________________________________________
grass-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
--
Benjamin Ducke, M.A.
Archäoinformatik
(Archaeoinformation Science)
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
(Inst. of Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology)
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
Johanna-Mestorf-Straße 2-6
D 24098 Kiel
Germany
Tel.: ++49 (0)431 880-3378 / -3379
Fax : ++49 (0)431 880-7300
www.uni-kiel.de/ufg
_______________________________________________
grass-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
