On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:52:06PM -0700, Robert Bray wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I agree and will see what I can do to make it happen. If we want wider
> adoption it may also be beneficial to see some kind of C/C++ access library
> created for the format. In the past I always felt the FDO Provider was
9:23 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open
data format
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 05:17:46PM -0800, Traian Stanev wrote:
> How about an OGR driver for SDF? No need to invent a new API when one already
> exists.
I think that was ex
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 05:17:46PM -0800, Traian Stanev wrote:
> How about an OGR driver for SDF? No need to invent a new API when one already
> exists.
I think that was exactly Bob's point: There is already an FDO driver for
SDF. If OGR is sufficient, I'm not entirely sure why FDO wouldn't be by
Traian Stanev wrote:
> How about an OGR driver for SDF? No need to invent a new API
> when one already exists.
Traian,
AFAIKU, that's the idea that triggered the debate
but it would be good if there is non-API specific library for SDF.
The the same library could be used by OGR, FDO, etc.
Cheers
: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
Robert Bray wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I agree and will see what I can do to make it happen. If we want wider
> adoption it may also be beneficial to see some kind of C/C++ access
> library created for the
Robert Bray wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I agree and will see what I can do to make it happen. If we want wider
> adoption it may also be beneficial to see some kind of C/C++ access
> library created for the format. In the past I always felt the FDO
> Provider was that library, but the masses seem to be te
that :)
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OSGeo Discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:18:42PM -0800, Robert Bray wrote:
> Is it an open format? ABSOLUTELY (we just never wrote a spec, but I am
> willing to get it done)
>
> All this said, I'd really like to understand everyones requirements for
> this new format. If SDF fits thats great, if not thats ok
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:discuss-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jo Walsh
>Sent: 18 November 2007 6:26 AM
>To: OSGeo Discussions
>Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
>data format
>
>dear Steve, all,
>On Tue, Nov 13, 2007
dear Steve, all,
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 05:24:55PM +, Steve Coast wrote:
> Real artists ship. For everyone else there's standards wanking.
As the origins of the word 'yardstick' suggest, size is relative,
and standards and wanking have always been intimately connected.
http://www.etymonline.c
Frank,
I was watching this PyTables video
[http://www.carabos.com/videos/pytables-1-intro] and one thought came to
my mind: HDF5 can easily be used to store and retrieve vector, raster
and attribute tables. We would need to standardize a schema tough.
Best regards,
Ivan
PS. I am not that I
Landon Blake wrote:
P.S. - This is probably a crazy idea, but has anyone ever considered
talking to ESRI about cooperating on an update Shapefile spec?
Landon,
I believe ESRI sees the "file based geodatabase" as filling roughly the
role that the Shapefile played in the ArcView 3.x days. Of co
2007 9:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On 11/14/07, David William Bitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I never (I think I never did) argued that
On 11/14/07, David William Bitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I never (I think I never did) argued that Shapefile is not open. I
> > argued that it is not Free. I could be wrong.
> >
> >
> > >
> Here's the open published specification:
> http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pd
> I find two problems with Shapefiles -- one, that it is not in public
> domain (I am not even sure of what licensing there is on it), and
> while ESRI is not likely to pull a Unisys on us, it just is
> philosophically better to free if possible.
I don't see this as an issue at all -- legally spe
>
>
> I never (I think I never did) argued that Shapefile is not open. I
> argued that it is not Free. I could be wrong.
>
> >
>
Here's the open published specification:
http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf
Do what you will with it. I don't know in this case what you imply by
On 11/14/07, Frank Warmerdam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
> > I find two problems with Shapefiles -- one, that it is not in public
> > domain (I am not even sure of what licensing there is on it), and
> > while ESRI is not likely to pull a Unisys on us, it just is
> > philosophicall
P Kishor wrote:
I find two problems with Shapefiles -- one, that it is not in public
domain (I am not even sure of what licensing there is on it), and
while ESRI is not likely to pull a Unisys on us, it just is
philosophically better to free if possible.
Puneet,
I think this is a red herring.
essage -
> From: "Michael P. Gerlek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "OSGeo Discussions" ;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,
:24 AM
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On 14-Nov-07, at 7:20 AM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
- optional coloring and styles, break values, rendering and
scale limits, persistent joins or relates, color ramp, ...
are things which are provided
On 11/14/07, Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:12:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I would just love to click open and see something nice, specially if
> > someone has already taken the time to make it beautiful.
> >
> > Think of it as the output of
On 14-Nov-07, at 7:20 AM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
- optional coloring and styles, break values, rendering and
scale limits, persistent joins or relates, color ramp, ...
are things which are provided by SLD and the like, which means that
you
really want SDF + WMC -- I don't think that t
.prj projection file and the .xml
metadata file.
Best regards,
Bart
--
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS, Open Source GIS
http://www.osgis.nl
- Oorspronkelijk bericht
Van: OSGeo Discussions
Naar: OSGeo Discussions
Onderwerp: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:12:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would just love to click open and see something nice, specially if
> someone has already taken the time to make it beautiful.
>
> Think of it as the output of a word processor instead of an editor.
> Excel vs. VisiCalc; and the
SDF faster than dbd: wow!
I think the SDF very much solves the issue as Puneet put it, but I will
add to the wish list a few things which may be optional but certainly
usefull and valuable as time saver:
- optional space for metadata,
- optional thumnails (in 2 sizes: thumb and browse)
- optional
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
> Regarding the suggestion that MapServer takes on this new format as
the
> primary format: I think this is way beyond the scope of
> > Regarding the suggestion that MapServer takes on this new format as
the
> > primary format: I think this is way beyond the scope of what OSGeo
should
> > be doing.
I agree with bitnerd. If the MapServer team thinks this is a valuable
and worthwhile format, they will adopt it at some point.
I have created a (now empty) space on the OSGeo wiki to start to fill in
concrete details that come out of this discussion at
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Geodata_formats. Please use the wiki to put
your wishlists for a new open data format, lists of existing data formats
with links to their sp
David,
On 11/13/07, David William Bitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Part of the mission of the OSGeo Geodata committee
> (http://www.osgeo.org/geodata) is to "promote the use of open geospatial
> formats". If there is a group that wants to continue pursuing the creation
> of a new open geodata
Part of the mission of the OSGeo Geodata committee (
http://www.osgeo.org/geodata) is to "promote the use of open geospatial
formats". If there is a group that wants to continue pursuing the creation
of a new open geodata format, I would like to encourage the use of the
geodata mailing list. That
On Nov 13, 2007, at 12:24 , Steve Coast wrote:
OSM: $0
CCBYSA: $0
Donation of entire Netherlands: Priceless
Real artists ship. For everyone else there's standards wanking.
Perhaps there's an art to wanking standards as well.
Seriously though, this is so kafka-esque. When OSM started it
Landon wrote:
---
I really think you are going to run into problems using the "Shapefile"
as part of the trademark or name for any product not sold by ESRI. I
strongly recommend against this move.
---
I'm not a lawyer, but I really doubt that shapefile is unique enough to
b
OSM: $0
CCBYSA: $0
Donation of entire Netherlands: Priceless
Real artists ship. For everyone else there's standards wanking.
Seriously though, this is so kafka-esque. When OSM started it was like
this: We should have got a committee to design a standard, then we
could think about a committ
] On Behalf Of P Kishor
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:09 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
data format
On 11/13/07, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Puneet,
>
> You wrote: "Should be easy to transition
Landon Blake ha scritto:
> I really think you are going to run into problems using the "Shapefile"
> as part of the trademark or name for any product not sold by ESRI.
This can be easily be overcome by using "OpenShape".
I think this is a good idea, as it will make transition psychologically
smoo
On 11/13/07, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Puneet,
>
> You wrote: "Should be easy to transition to. By building the new format
> on the
> structure of the Shapefile format, and *in fact*, calling it "open
> shapefiles" or some such thing, we indicate from its name that the
> transition
Puneet,
You wrote: "Should be easy to transition to. By building the new format
on the
structure of the Shapefile format, and *in fact*, calling it "open
shapefiles" or some such thing, we indicate from its name that the
transition is not that revolutionary but is evolutionary. This,
hopefully, wi
37 matches
Mail list logo
