Robert, I agree. I also see this as the best way to store data, combining the geographical part directly to the alfanumerical part - and this is actual what MapInfo has been doing for many years.
But I can also see needs for more advanced topology features in MapInfo eventhough there already is a lot that can be done, you just need to write the application yourself. By the way, it is possible to select all blue polygons using SQL: Select * From MYTABLE Where Val(Str$(StyleAttr(ObjectInfo(OBJ, 3))) = RGB(0,0,255) I will also recommend everyone to pass on feature requests to your MapInfo reseller and ask them to pass them on to MapInfo. This is really the best way to tell MapInfo what you require. Of course this doesn't always mean that your wish can be fullfilled, but the more people wishing for a thing the bigger the chance ;-) And finally I would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year Peter Horsbøll Møller GIS Developer, MTM Geographical Information & IT COWI A/S Odensevej 95 DK-5260 Odense S. Denmark Tel +45 6311 4900 Direct +45 6311 4908 Mob +45 5156 1045 Fax +45 6311 4949 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cowi.dk/gis -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Crossley Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 2:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [MI-L] Fixes and New MapInfo Features Bill, I sort of disagree here. It would be nice if there was a hierarchy of points, arcs and polygons and all of those modelling niceties were there, but these were designed back when computers had less grunt than my calculator. Is it a big advantage now? Now, most of those sorts of calculations can be done by the software on the fly, generally in less time than in the old days. Arc's topology make it a good data capture tool, especially if you want to avoid getting slivers etc between polygons - but if you want to follow the same procedures, then surely there are some other good clean and build tools. I think that a far more important design feature is the intimate connection between the spatial object and the data about it. After all, arguably the most widely accepted spatial model is Oracle Spatial, and to my knowledge, it stores the spatial object as part of the data, and lets the software worry about topology. I'm sure that this connection to the data makes the whole integrated spatial and data query tighter. R ------------------------------------------- Robert Crossley Agtrix P/L Australia Far Southern Queensland Office: 9 Short Street PO Box 63 New Brighton 2483 P: 61 2 6680 1309 F: 61 2 6680 5214 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.agtrix.com Brisbane Office: 109 Milsom St Cooparoo 4151 Queensland P: 61 7 3843 3363 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Thoen Sent: 23 December 2005 10:16 To: MapInfo List Subject: Re: [MI-L] Fixes and New MapInfo Features Søren Breddam wrote: >This shouldn't be hard to implement.. Topology is obviously more >difficult. If the topology issue was implemented, we could sell our >license to Microstation ;-) And do even more interesting queries. > > Well, in the beginning, MapInfo decided to use a simple model that didn't need the rigorous set up that topology requires. When MI came out, it was trivial to make a map -- you just drew what you wanted and presto! You had a map. From the very beginning they were after the business market, not the science people. In fact MapInfo's first product was more like a pin-map tool to locate customers, franchises, etc. i.e. strictly business. It's also why they've resisted being called a GIS, opting instead for "desktop mapping." Business people don't know GIS, and don't wan to know GIS, but they're bang alongside things that are as accessible as a "desktop." MapInfo basically made a tool that could associate data with drawings, which is actually a fairly powerful concept. The alternative was Acr/INFO. To use that, you needed to understand GIS at the techno-weenie level and build your map objects by first establishing the nodes, then snap the arcs to those (assigning to and from nodes) and then build polygons by assigning ids to the left and right sides of the arcs. To do all this properly generaly took some time, but in the end, you were assured that operations like dissolving smaller areas into larger ones, or finding adjacent polygons or traversing a network all became pretty straight-forward when you could use arc-node topological math. Personally, I prefer ESRI's model because I like the internal consistency that topology adds. I also like their idea of associating style information with data attributes rather than making it part of the map data. That makes it easy to select information from the data with SQL whereas in MapInfo, if you want all the blue objects for example, you can't use SQL. But I must admit, there are times when MapInfo's model is just so much simpler to implement and sometimes a map *is* just a drawing with some data attached and you don't need to do anything with topology. My point is that I don't think MapInfo needs to be more "GISey" as much as they should pay attention to what their core market and focus is (or was.) It was business information analysis and presentation of spatial data. That means not only do they need good analysis tools (and data) but they really need to sex up their graphics presentation capability. They aren't aimed at doing modelling or network analysis so they don't *need* topology. But they do need better graphic tools so that the software's output can blow the collective socks off an audience. _______________________________________________ MapInfo-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.directionsmag.com/mailman/listinfo/mapinfo-l _______________________________________________ MapInfo-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.directionsmag.com/mailman/listinfo/mapinfo-l _______________________________________________ MapInfo-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.directionsmag.com/mailman/listinfo/mapinfo-l
