Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO code

2009-12-22 Thread Luis W. Sevilla

Hi Jo,
   I agree, but It seems EPSG:3785 it's the official code for 
Spherical/Web Mercator so it should be the one on this updated spec.
http://www.spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/3785/ , 
http://www.iter.dk/post/2008/05/SphericalWeb-Mercator-EPSG-code-3785.aspx
I'm looking for authority information on both codes you send, and I'm 
only getting emails and tile-cache related texts.


greetings
   Luis
Jo wrote:

Hi,
I apologise if this is out of topic, but I don't know where else to 
post this question.

I'm implementing the OSGEO Tile Map Server

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Tile_Map_Service_Specification

and I came across a SRS named OSGEO:41001;
since I don't know this authority and code, I was wondering if it is 
the same as Google Mercator (EPSG:900913).

This was also suggested to me from reading in other places:

http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/SoCGDAL2Tiles#NewsuggestionsforTMSStandard

If it is the same, maybe it would be a good idea to change the code 
for EPSG (update the spec), for a matter of inter operability and 
compatibility with other services?
If it is not the same, I would really appreciate if you could point me 
to other places where I can get more information about this SRS.
Thanks in 
advance,
   
   best regards,
   
Jo

--
#define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb))  (Shakespeare)



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
  


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Question about FOSS4G Business Models

2009-12-18 Thread Luis W. Sevilla

Hi
As I have some perspective about gvSIG (I was directly involved last 6 
years), I may suggest you to contact directly with people in charge of 
the project both in main founder and two main contractors:

CIT (Generalitat Valenciana): Martín García or Gabriel Carrión
IVER: Pepe Vidal or Alvaro Anguix
Prodevelop: Miguel Montesinos.
This may be the best path for starting, as far as I know.

Greetings
Luis

P.S. If you need some of the email addresses, please write to me by 
private email.


Rafal Wawer wrote:

Dear Daniele,
No need to be sorry. The hasty was with the  (-;  (-:
Anyway - please consider reformulating the sentence. I will suggest 
contacting someone from gvSIG (http://www.gvsig.org/web/) and ask for 
help - I am sure gvSIG wil be happy to cooperate.

I am looking forward to the final document. (-:
Cheers:
Raf

Dr. Rafal Wawer
K.U.Leuven
RD Division SADL (Spatial Application Division)
Celestijnenlaan 200e bus 2224
BE-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
Belgium
tel. 0032 16 329731



*From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *daniele.ocu ocu

*Sent:* 15 December 2009 18:07
*To:* discuss@lists.osgeo.org
*Subject:* [OSGeo-Discuss] Question about FOSS4G Business Models

Dear Rafal,

Thank you very much for your considerations. I am also very thankful 
for the suggestions. I am sorry if the statements in the report 
appeared to be hasty but I totally agree with you, the research is 
only in the beginning and I will go on increasing the contact with the 
companies and lists you suggested.


Daniele

--
Researcher @ Osaka City University
Graduate School for Creative Cities
http://gisws.media.osaka-cu.ac.jp/gistrends

My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of 
my life there.

— Charles F. Kettering



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
  


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership

2009-12-17 Thread Luis W. Sevilla

(Sorry if duplicated. it doesn't seem to be arrived first time)

Hi,
   one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is
an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his
laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it
seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to
American companies (and also foundations).

   If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned)
institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every
copyrights to the foundation.

   My two cents
  Luis

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership

2009-12-14 Thread Luis W. Sevilla

Hi,
   one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is 
an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his 
laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it 
seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to 
American companies (and also foundations).


   If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned) 
institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every 
copyrights to the foundation.


   My two cents
  Luis

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Discuss] Letter of support for FGDC CAP grant

2008-03-11 Thread Luis W. Sevilla
Sorry Chris, I'm getting an error 404 with your link.
best regards
   Luis
Chris Holmes wrote:

 So it looks like we got this:
 http://www.fgdc.gov/grants/2007CAP/Category2/07HQAG-NY

 Thanks to everyone for your support, and for the letter from OSGeo,
 I'm sure it helped our application.  It should be a fun project.  We
 have some work to figure out exactly how we're going to handle it, but
 if anyone has a burning desire to help with testing and/or writing
 nice user guides, the plan is to use GISCorps volunteers, and if
 you're not already a member you can join:
 http://www.giscorps.org/our_volunteers.php

 best regards,

 Chris

 Chris Holmes wrote:

 As per:
 http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Protocol_for_requesting_letter_of_support


 I am writing to request a letter of support from OSGeo for a Cooperative
 Agreement Program grant from the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
 There is information at:
 http://www.fgdc.gov/grants/2007CAP/2007CAPschedule, we are going for
 category 2 'framework client development'.  The main point of the grant
 is to add capabilities to access WFS servers that serve the 'Framework
 Data' - which are complex GML 3.1.1 application schemas for common data
 layers (transportation, hydrography, government units, ect.).

 A majority of the work will be at the GeoTools level, improving it's
 core feature model and parsers to handle complex GML 3.1.1.  This work
 will be reusable by any Java project.  The client targeted is uDig,
 which is built on GeoTools.

 My organization - The Open Planning Project (http://topp.openplans.org)
 - is taking the lead and partnering with CIESIN and GISCorps.  It's a
 great chance to form closer bonds with GISCorps - our goal is to use the
 funding to make a desktop GIS that their volunteers will be able to use
 and to leave behind in resource poor communities.  GISCorps volunteers
 will be helping us to refine the interface and to write training
 materials for others to use - not just about using the software but also
 teaching new people about GIS in general.

 We'd like a letter of support from OSGeo to help the potential funders
 see that we're working in the wider open source context.  There wouldn't
 need to be much of a commitment, except for maybe a bit about helping to
 promote the final solution, if people were comfortable with that.

 If you'd like any more information let me know.

 best regards,

 Chris


 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


 !DSPAM:1003,45a8206754727731818748!


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
  


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: FOSS4GIS business models

2008-01-04 Thread Luis W. Sevilla
Hi Gilberto (and list),
only a couple of  notes
Gilberto Camara wrote:

 Dear OSGEO Discussion List members:

 Paul Ramsey´s remarks are right on target.

 First, GIS is a large arena and there are
 different motivations for developers, that
 prevent them from joining a single project such as uDIG.

 Second, it is very difficult for a private
 company to develop a world-class FOSS4G product
 and survive based only on consulting
 fees for the commercial sector.

 Third, to overcome these limitations there is
 a need for governmental intervention, which may
 be direct, as in the case of Catalonian government´s

Sorry, but is Valencian government (region south to Catalonia)

 support for gvSIG, or indirect, as in the decision
 of Germany to support open source software.

Also Extremadura in Spain has this support. 100% of school
software it's linux based, and now every classroom has 1
for every two boys with the money they dont waste on
licenses.


 In Brazil, the National Institute for Space Research (INPE)
 has been supporting local GIS development for 25 years,
 with a lot of success in our national user community.
 Without official support, there would be no local FOOS4G
 development in Brazil.

 In 2003, I did a F00S4G market survey and published the
 results as a chapter of a US National Academy of Sciences book:
 Open Source GIS Software: Myths and Realities
 www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/papers/camara_open_source_myths.pdf.

 We analysed 70 FOSS4G software projects taken from the
 FreeGIS list, and divided them into three categories:
 networked products (e.g. GRASS), corporate products (e.g., PostGIS)
 and individual products (e.g., CAVOR). From each product,
 we assessed its maturity, level of support and functionality.

 Our main conclusions at the time were:
 (a) Only 6% of the  products were developed by networked teams.
 Thus, the “Linux paradigm” is the exception rather than the rule.
 (b) Corporations (private or public) are the main developers of
 successful open source products. Corporations account for 41% of
 all products.
 (e) Individual-led software (a small team of 1-3 people) have
 less quality and more mortality than the above.

 These results show that the impetus behind successful
 open source software was not coming from altruistic individuals
 working in the midnight hour, but from professional programmers.
 I consider that a similar result would be obtained today, should
 the assessment be repeated.

 This analysis was further elaborated in a JASIST paper:
 Information Policies and Open Source Software in Developing Countries
 www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/papers/camara_fonseca_jasist.pdf.

 For the FOSS4G effort to be fruitful and sustainable,
 we need a very informed and candid assessment of our
 business model. My personal view, based on 25 years of experience,
 is that government intervention is essential for the open source
 model to survive beyond a handful of examples.

 Best regards
 Gilberto


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Time In GIS - Requested Updates Made

2007-12-24 Thread Luis W. Sevilla
Hi Landon,
maybe you'll find usefull also some of the OGC works. For instanc
the paper 06-022r1 Temporal Standard Recomendations,

greetings
   Luis

Landon Blake wrote:

 I made updates and/or corrections to the wiki page for Time In GIS
 requested by Brent Fraser and Grant Pezeshki. Brent provided a simple
 example of using time in GIS for cadastral parcels. I need to chew on
 this some more and then I may post it to the page.

  

 Thanks Brent and Grant.

  

 Landon

  



 *Warning:
 *Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against
 defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader
 is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
 dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
 strictly prohibited.  If you have received this information in error,
 please notify the sender immediately.



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
  


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open data format

2007-11-20 Thread Luis W. Sevilla
Hi again, Gabi,
shouldn't it be a good compromise to have an spatial index added to
GML+BXML ?
greetings
   Luis
Gabriel Roldán wrote:

Hi all,

nice thread, I've went roughly through half of it yet, so my concern could be 
already addressed, apologies if so.

It seems to me a single format for every purpose will lead to noone good. I 
would separate concerns between what can be expected of an interchange format 
and of a backend storage facility.
For the former, GML and BXML fit just right. BXML is meant to bring some 
benefits over the verbosity, transfer size and handling of GML and other XML 
data languages, but certainly can't do as well as a proper RDBMS or such in 
data integrity, transaction atomicity/isolation, etc.
For the same reason one should never use shapefile for concurrent 
transactions, even if it may perform well enough for read only access.

On Saturday 17 November 2007 08:08:08 pm Luis W. Sevilla wrote:
  

Hi,
  +1 for GML with BXML encoding as next open standard. GML 3.* with his
ability to be 'profiled' seems to be on the base of  almost all and
every OGC norm being proposed on last 2-3 years. As Rob Atkinson said to
me, BXML may be an encoding for GML, in a way no standard needs to be
modifyed to support this encoding, only implementors must add support to
it. At gvSIG we're currently working both on a low level library for
reading and writing GML 3.* + other GML alike formats, disacopled of our
object model, and a java port of this cubewerx BXML encoder/decoder.


slight correction, the ongoing java bxml project is in no way a port of the 
cubewerx one. Afaik, we're going to support the full spec while cwxml does 
not.
  

We 
hope to release early results by the end of 1st term next year. Maybe the
way of push the standard (both OGC and ISO) it's by simply implement
parsers and writers, and use it a widely as possible.



Luis++

Gabriel
  

greetings
   Luis

Paul Spencer wrote:


Cubewerx created a binary XML implementation that is open source.
They claim substantial benefits, so perhaps GML plus a binary XML
library could be an alternative?

http://www.cubewerx.com/web/guest/bxml

Cheers

Paul

On 15-Nov-07, at 5:21 PM, Lucena, Ivan wrote:
  

Sampson,

I am not a GML guru and I don't know if a binary version exists
already, but I would imagine that HDF5 would be a excellent choice
by its own hierarchical nature. I mean, we can use GML as a schema
to store the data in binary format in the HDF5 format.

Best regards,

Ivan

Sampson, David wrote:


Alright,
Here are some other thoughts.
First off what about a open office (open base) type approach... This
mimmics the ESRI MSAccess approach and seams to work well for non
server
environments. Also open office is a good environment for some basic
applications.
Next, what ever happened to the adoption of GML... Was GML not
supposed
to be the NEXT interchange fomrat?  Perhaps this is a good
discussion to
include the GML gurus in. The whole discussion of going with a binary
GML format makes sense and GML is already used for many web mapping
(feature) services. It sounds like a duplication of GML to me...
Unless
someone can offer a direct compare and contrast between the concept
here
and the GML/Binary GML concept.
In either case being able to convert to and from GML would be a
necesity
for wide adoption IMHO.
Another thought is to encourage some of the proprietary formats to
open
up. What would it take to get ESRI on board to open up the format
(open
as in free speech). What about other non-open standards? Once it's
open
then we can bring the SHP format to modern day useage. Surely much of
the format could be salvaged.
Besides, if you want wide adoption of an open format then why not
go for
those players who hold greatest market share.
Some thoughts.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 09:53
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open  data
format
So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
data.
That it is open (albeit not Free) along with the deep and wide
presence
of ESRI's products from the beginning of the epoch, it has been  widely
adopted. Existence of shapelib, various language bindings, and
ready use
by products such as MapServer has continued to cement Shapefile as  the
format to use. All this is in spite of Shapefile's inherent  drawbacks,
particularly in the area of attribute data management.
What if we came up with a new and improved data format -- call it
Open
Shapefile (extension .osh) -- that would be completely Free,
single-file based (instead of the multiple .shp, .dbf, .shx, etc.),
and
based on SQLite, giving the .osh format complete relational data
handling capabilities. We would require a new version of Shapelib,
improved language bindings, make it the default and preferred
format for
MapServer, and provide

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open data format

2007-11-19 Thread Luis W. Sevilla
Thanks for the note. I've forwarded to the person in charge of the
project for study.
greetings
   Luis
Raj Singh wrote:

 Luis, good to hear support for a GML version of Peter Vretanos' BXML. 
 When we were working on the WFS Simple API last year Peter and I did 
 some more work on it here:
 http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/189
 (schema and examples)

 I think it's slightly different (simpler and geometry harmonized with 
 GeoRSS GML) than what's at http://www.cubewerx.com/web/guest/bxml,
 but  the idea is the same.
 ---
 Raj


 On Nov 17, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Luis W. Sevilla wrote:

 Hi,
  +1 for GML with BXML encoding as next open standard. GML 3.* with his
 ability to be 'profiled' seems to be on the base of  almost all and
 every OGC norm being proposed on last 2-3 years. As Rob Atkinson 
 said to
 me, BXML may be an encoding for GML, in a way no standard needs to be
 modifyed to support this encoding, only implementors must add 
 support to it.
At gvSIG we're currently working both on a low level library for
 reading and writing GML 3.* + other GML alike formats, disacopled of
 our object model, and a java port of this cubewerx BXML encoder/
 decoder.
 We hope to release early results by the end of 1st term next year.
Maybe the way of push the standard (both OGC and ISO) it's by  simply
 implement parsers and writers, and use it a widely as possible.

greetings
   Luis
 Paul Spencer wrote:

 Cubewerx created a binary XML implementation that is open source.
 They claim substantial benefits, so perhaps GML plus a binary XML
 library could be an alternative?

 http://www.cubewerx.com/web/guest/bxml

 Cheers

 Paul

 On 15-Nov-07, at 5:21 PM, Lucena, Ivan wrote:

 Sampson,

 I am not a GML guru and I don't know if a binary version exists
 already, but I would imagine that HDF5 would be a excellent choice
 by its own hierarchical nature. I mean, we can use GML as a schema
 to store the data in binary format in the HDF5 format.

 Best regards,

 Ivan

 Sampson, David wrote:

 Alright,
 Here are some other thoughts.
 First off what about a open office (open base) type approach...  This
 mimmics the ESRI MSAccess approach and seams to work well for non
 server
 environments. Also open office is a good environment for some basic
 applications.
 Next, what ever happened to the adoption of GML... Was GML not
 supposed
 to be the NEXT interchange fomrat?  Perhaps this is a good
 discussion to
 include the GML gurus in. The whole discussion of going with a 
 binary
 GML format makes sense and GML is already used for many web mapping
 (feature) services. It sounds like a duplication of GML to me...
 Unless
 someone can offer a direct compare and contrast between the concept
 here
 and the GML/Binary GML concept.
 In either case being able to convert to and from GML would be a
 necesity
 for wide adoption IMHO.
 Another thought is to encourage some of the proprietary formats to
 open
 up. What would it take to get ESRI on board to open up the format
 (open
 as in free speech). What about other non-open standards? Once it's
 open
 then we can bring the SHP format to modern day useage. Surely 
 much of
 the format could be salvaged.
 Besides, if you want wide adoption of an open format then why not
 go for
 those players who hold greatest market share.
 Some thoughts.
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor
 Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 09:53
 To: OSGeo Discussions
 Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, 
 open  data
 format
 So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
 data.
 That it is open (albeit not Free) along with the deep and wide
 presence
 of ESRI's products from the beginning of the epoch, it has been  
 widely
 adopted. Existence of shapelib, various language bindings, and
 ready use
 by products such as MapServer has continued to cement Shapefile 
 as  the
 format to use. All this is in spite of Shapefile's inherent  
 drawbacks,
 particularly in the area of attribute data management.
 What if we came up with a new and improved data format -- call it
 Open
 Shapefile (extension .osh) -- that would be completely Free,
 single-file based (instead of the multiple .shp, .dbf, .shx, etc.),
 and
 based on SQLite, giving the .osh format complete relational data
 handling capabilities. We would require a new version of Shapelib,
 improved language bindings, make it the default and preferred
 format for
 MapServer, and provide seamless and painless import of regular .shp
 data
 into .osh for native rendering. Its adoption would be quick in the
 open
 source community. The non-opensource community would either not  
 give a
 rat's behind for it, but it wouldn't affect them...
 they would still work with their preferred .shp until they learned
 better. By having a completely open and Free single-file based,
 built on
 SQLite, fully relational dbms capable spatial data format, it 
 would

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open data format

2007-11-17 Thread Luis W. Sevilla
Hi,
  +1 for GML with BXML encoding as next open standard. GML 3.* with his
ability to be 'profiled' seems to be on the base of  almost all and
every OGC norm being proposed on last 2-3 years. As Rob Atkinson said to
me, BXML may be an encoding for GML, in a way no standard needs to be
modifyed to support this encoding, only implementors must add support to it.
At gvSIG we're currently working both on a low level library for
reading and writing GML 3.* + other GML alike formats, disacopled of 
our object model, and a java port of this cubewerx BXML encoder/decoder.
We hope to release early results by the end of 1st term next year.
Maybe the way of push the standard (both OGC and ISO) it's by simply
implement parsers and writers, and use it a widely as possible.

greetings
   Luis
Paul Spencer wrote:

 Cubewerx created a binary XML implementation that is open source.  
 They claim substantial benefits, so perhaps GML plus a binary XML 
 library could be an alternative?

 http://www.cubewerx.com/web/guest/bxml

 Cheers

 Paul

 On 15-Nov-07, at 5:21 PM, Lucena, Ivan wrote:

 Sampson,

 I am not a GML guru and I don't know if a binary version exists 
 already, but I would imagine that HDF5 would be a excellent choice 
 by its own hierarchical nature. I mean, we can use GML as a schema 
 to store the data in binary format in the HDF5 format.

 Best regards,

 Ivan

 Sampson, David wrote:

 Alright,
 Here are some other thoughts.
 First off what about a open office (open base) type approach... This
 mimmics the ESRI MSAccess approach and seams to work well for non 
 server
 environments. Also open office is a good environment for some basic
 applications.
 Next, what ever happened to the adoption of GML... Was GML not 
 supposed
 to be the NEXT interchange fomrat?  Perhaps this is a good 
 discussion to
 include the GML gurus in. The whole discussion of going with a binary
 GML format makes sense and GML is already used for many web mapping
 (feature) services. It sounds like a duplication of GML to me... 
 Unless
 someone can offer a direct compare and contrast between the concept 
 here
 and the GML/Binary GML concept.
 In either case being able to convert to and from GML would be a 
 necesity
 for wide adoption IMHO.
 Another thought is to encourage some of the proprietary formats to 
 open
 up. What would it take to get ESRI on board to open up the format 
 (open
 as in free speech). What about other non-open standards? Once it's 
 open
 then we can bring the SHP format to modern day useage. Surely much of
 the format could be salvaged.
 Besides, if you want wide adoption of an open format then why not 
 go for
 those players who hold greatest market share.
 Some thoughts.
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor
 Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 09:53
 To: OSGeo Discussions
 Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open  data
 format
 So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS 
 data.
 That it is open (albeit not Free) along with the deep and wide 
 presence
 of ESRI's products from the beginning of the epoch, it has been  widely
 adopted. Existence of shapelib, various language bindings, and 
 ready use
 by products such as MapServer has continued to cement Shapefile as  the
 format to use. All this is in spite of Shapefile's inherent  drawbacks,
 particularly in the area of attribute data management.
 What if we came up with a new and improved data format -- call it 
 Open
 Shapefile (extension .osh) -- that would be completely Free,
 single-file based (instead of the multiple .shp, .dbf, .shx, etc.), 
 and
 based on SQLite, giving the .osh format complete relational data
 handling capabilities. We would require a new version of Shapelib,
 improved language bindings, make it the default and preferred 
 format for
 MapServer, and provide seamless and painless import of regular .shp 
 data
 into .osh for native rendering. Its adoption would be quick in the 
 open
 source community. The non-opensource community would either not  give a
 rat's behind for it, but it wouldn't affect them...
 they would still work with their preferred .shp until they learned
 better. By having a completely open and Free single-file based, 
 built on
 SQLite, fully relational dbms capable spatial data format, it would  be
 positioned for continued improvement and development.
 Is this too crazy?
 -- 
 Puneet Kishor
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss