[OSGeo-Discuss] Next 5 years for OSGeo

G. Allegri giohappy at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 09:12:12 PDT 2009


I agree that neither OsGEO nor the communities are meant to reproduce such
full featured proprietary architectures. I think thay should point to give a
strong, common, backgorund to even enable (someone) to build richer,
integrated platforms. I know it's a hard target, and something is going on
with this (ie the cartographic library), but it would help a lot to
guarantee a low level concistency between the softwares. Ok, I'm talking for
the C/C++ side of the world, but it's the same for the Java one. A good
exemple for the latter is the integration of SextanteGIS inside the major
projects (uDig, OpenJUMP, JGrass, Gvsig, etc.).

giovanni


2009/9/15 Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at lizardtech.com>

> Thinking aloud, a possible contrarian view:
>
> A goal like "to produce a comprehensive suite of tools [that do X or Y]..."
> doesn't likely fit with OSGeo's broad membership and interests.  We are an
> umbrella organization representing a number of projects, each with its own
> unique goals and agendas.  It is unlikely OSGeo would be able to produce a
> specific tool just because (hypothetically) the Board says we should: open
> source folks often don't take top-down direction well, unless it meets their
> own personal needs and agendas.
>
> Which is not to say that an analytical tool suite is a bad idea, just that
> it seems unlikely to be a worthy goal at that level of the hierarchy.
>
> -mpg
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-
> > bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of "René A. Enguehard"
> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 2:35 PM
> > To: OSGeo Discussions
> > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Next 5 years for OSGeo
> >
> > What I'd like to see within the next 5 years would be more analytical
> > tools. Most of the projects in OSGeo are very much enablers: they put
> > the facilities in place for people to program their own tools. However,
> > as I have noticed over the years, people are reluctant to move to open
> > source implementations of geospatial software because they are, in
> > effect, losing capabilities. Yes, there is still the potential for the
> > same capabilities to be put back in, but the fact remains they just
> > aren't there. For example, I have never seen any MCDA, PCA, HotSpot
> > Analysis, CART or neural network tools in open source packages. If we
> > were to produce a comprehensive suite of tools offering the standard
> > analytical tools as well as some more advanced ones, then these
> > proprietary offerings wouldn't look as appealing. Moreover, if we had a
> > consolidated toolset which could be used on a multitude of project we
> > would not have to re-invent the wheel for each separate project.
> > Currently, proprietary software generally offers advanced analytic
> > capability out-of-the-box and open source software does not. I see this
> > as a bit of a stumbling block.
> >
> > Another thing, and I was chatting about this in the lab today, is that
> > for particular needs, open source implementations of geospatial
> > software
> > generally don't have much to offer. The generic capabilities are there,
> > or at least enabled for others to program, but special-needs cases
> > there
> > is not much. The example used today in the lab was CARIS HIPS or SIPS.
> > What, if anything, exists in the open source community that could come
> > close to the processing capabilities of this?
> >
> > Still another area with a lack of development is 3D and 4D modeling /
> > rendering / analysis, something like ESRI ArcGlobe with the 3D Analyst
> > package or Myriax Eonfusion. There has been very little work in these
> > domains which are of particular interest to me. Perhaps the amount of
> > people working in these areas is much smaller than the amount of people
> > using something more like general analytic capabilities, but it is an
> > area that "needs work" nonetheless.
> >
> > The point, and I'd like to make this clear, is not the I'm bemoaning
> > the
> > lack of features and projects in the open source community. I think
> > OSGeo and the open source community have done a tremendous job and
> > should feel, rightfully, proud at what they have accomplished. However,
> > when asked what I'd like to see on the agenda for OSGeo, this is it.
> > I'd
> > like to see a hard push towards analytics to make the various projects
> > we have to offer more directly useful to the average GIS user. In the
> > end, it's really about market penetration. The more useful open source
> > software is, the better a "deal" it looks like to outsiders and the
> > more
> > people we'll attract.
> >
> > Please note: I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, IANAL,
> > just
> > my two cents, your mileage may vary, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
> >
> > Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
> > > Hi everyone, a recent chat I was asked about our vision for OSGeo
> > over
> > > the next 3 and 5 years.  I'd really like to hear thoughts on the
> > matter
> > > and pool a few of the ideas together for further discussions amongst
> > > committees, projects, chapters and the board.
> > >
> > > It's also a good way for the board nominees in the upcoming election
> > to
> > > get a sense of where other members are thinking these days.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Tyler
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090915/dcdaffd9/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list