On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 04:20:10PM -0700, Charles R. Schmidt wrote: > Hi All, > While I agree that hardware is a significant challenge I do not think it's > the only challenge. A distributed approach can greatly alleviate many of > the burdens of central hosting. This would also be more in-line with OGC > style web-services where OAM can act more as a registry, processing service, > and/or distributed cache. > > Another thing to keep in mind that I feel will be a much greater challenge > is interface > design. OAM was never meant to serve one monolithic mosaic. In the > initial inception OAM was to be much more OSM/Wiki like, allowing > users to rank and tag imagery as it was added to the archive.
Not really. OAM was started exactly to be one monolithic mosaic, as an 'open' alternative to Google Maps satellite imagery, nothing more. (The fact that the project grew to have so many people thinking that it was 'meant to' do so many things is evidence of the people in terested havd a wide variety of varied interests, not that the project itself, insofar as it exists as a seperate entity, had those goals at its inception.) > Something like a dynamic mosaic were the imagery severed is a function > of user preferences (acquisition date, spatial > resolution, clouds, event tags, etc, etc). There is little reason these > dynamic mosaics cannot be compiled on the fly with some well designed > data-structures and a maybe a little client side (javascript) > processing. This statement speaks of a complete lack of understanding of the actual effort required to do such a thing. Distributing a global mosaic -- though in and of itself a formidible task -- pales in comparison to creating on the fly mosaics catered to user preferences. The difference is similar to the difference in serving up a WMS with reasonable speed to serving up a cached tileset with reasonable speed -- and for web mapping, you can see which has had more popularity as web mapping has become more popular. The goal is admirable, but is not a 'first step' towards making aerial imagery more widely and openly available. - > Another important design goal was to maintain the original > imagery. As this project was born in an academic setting we'd like to > maintain its usefulness to academia. Both in terms of an outlet for > institutions to share their imagery, but also as a source of data for > research projects. > > A topic raised at the recent experiments was that of licensing. > There are many cases were US Government > agencies (and probably others) are able to share their imagery with the > Disaster Management Community, NGOs, etc, but not everyone. Are there? I've not run into anyone claiming that is the case for their imagery: as I've said repeatedly, my problems were always in the other direction -- too much imagery, not too little. >An OAM > framework could potentially serve as a bridge between the Govt. data silos > and these communities. However, the framework needs to be flexible enough to > support limited distribution imagery without mucking up the licensing > considerations for others. In general, I think that this problem is not one that the OAM community needs to have as its primary problem to solve. Then again, I stil can't see that OAM is going to be much more than a collection of like-minded people maintaining a registry, if it's going to succeed, so perhaps my vision is simply too narrow. > > Sincerely, > "Charles" Schmidt. > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM, David William > > Bitner<[email protected]> wrote: > > > Greetings all, > > > > [ ... ] > > > It appears as though there may be > > > an opportunity to provide travel and accommodations support if we were to > > > have a desire/need to have a face-to-face meetup to see what we can do to > > > bring OAM back online in a sustainable (human and technology) fashion. > > If > > > we were to seek this funding, I would want to be able to go to them with > > a > > > very clear plan of what we were trying to accomplish. > > > > The discussion at State of the Map was interesting and important. The > > in-person discussions you had at NDU appear to have been inspirational > > as well. Have we enough interest here and now to just do it? Or do we > > need to put more heads together and get further inspired? > > > > So what items would we put on the agenda for this meeting? Can we > > tackle these items in email-space? > > > > Agenda > > ===== > > 1. discover current hosting and hardware details. > > 2. establish future hosting and hardware requirements and wish list. > > ... > > n. meet in person, raise toasts. > > > > Please add to the agenda. The agenda should tell us if we need to > > meet in person. > > > > > In addition, if there > > > were any "players" in the world that we might want to get involved, this > > > could be a good opportunity to bring them in. > > > > I wonder if this is easier if we can point them to the working, relaunched > > site? > > > > Best regards, > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
