<div dir="ltr">Hi Peter,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for the invitation. I have just registered, and am looking forward to working with you.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Rob</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Peter Baumann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de" target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Rob,<br>
<br>
excellent, now we are getting into technical discussion.<br>
<br>
I did not say that rasdaman is the best in the universe under all
possible constellations, but we do have both theoretical
considerations and practical results that suggest that rasdaman
performs outstandingly well on n-D arrays.<br>
<br>
Your offer to participate is very welcome, and timely. We have
established the RDA Array Database Assessment WG, and here we need
as many volunteers as possible to undertake this huge endeavour of
getting reproducible knowledge about the state of the art, best
practices, etc. Here is the page:<br>
<a href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/array-database-working-group.html" target="_blank">https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/array-database-working-group.html</a><br>
<br>
Participation is at no cost and open, same the results. Just
register yourself with RDA and let me know so that we canplan
contributions.<br>
<br>
Looking forward to welcoming you on board,<br>
Peter<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 05/15/2016 06:10 PM, Rob Emanuele
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Apologies for veering off topic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Hi Peter,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for citing your resources. Unfortunately I can't
access the one paper, since the only version I could find is
behind a paywall, and the bar chart you attached gives very
little information; from these I cannot understand the
methodology or results. If you have more details I would be
happy to look further into this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My concern is with your wide sweeping statements, and the
implication that rasdaman has been scientifically verified to
be more performant than any other system in all cases. This to
me feels hyperbolically similar to measuring that a bowling
ball falls faster than a piece of paper when dropped from the
roof of a building and concluding that trees are the objects
which fall most slowly towards the earth.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For instance, I have doubts that those who had conducted
the quoted performance benchmarks set up the Apache Spark
system in a way that represents all potential configurations.
I work on the GeoTrellis project [1], which adds raster
processing capabilities to Spark. I could for instance imagine
a system where raster data was stored in Accumulo, indexed by
GeoTrellis, and processed through Spark, which is very fast
under many query types. I won't make any assumptions on how
fast as compared to other systems, and it's very possible that
rasdaman will beat out such a system in a set of query types,
or perhaps all queries. However, it is my opinion that until
the two systems were compared in such a way that everyone
agreed on on the methodology and the results, casually using
the "fact" that one system is "way faster" than the other
system, and that one beats the other "in all benchmarks" as an
argument for some treatment from OSGeo (or for any other
purpose) deserves to be called into question, which I am doing
here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd be happy to collaborate to develop, out in the open and
in front of any paywalls, an objective system of measuring
performance between systems. At which point in time we could
make proclamations like, "[whichever framework], under [these
specific query types], running on [however many nodes,
whatever type of hardware], storing [this amount] of [this
type of data], performs better than [some other framework]
under the same conditions". Until then, I object to your very
broad statements of superiority.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Rob</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] <a href="https://github.com/geotrellis/geotrellis" target="_blank">https://github.com/geotrellis/geotrellis</a></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Moritz
Lennert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mlennert@club.worldonline.be" target="_blank">mlennert@club.worldonline.be</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On 15/05/16 14:40, Marco Afonso wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Anita,<br>
<br>
Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software
quality evaluation AND<br>
project organization evaluation.<br>
<br>
So you can exclude an open source software with high
quality if their<br>
organization evaluation is low.<br>
<br>
For me that seems wrong. A software on a public
repository is only<br>
limited by it's licence terms, or unlimited at all. :)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
But the discussion is not about whether the software should
be in a public repository or not, or what the licence term
should be. The discussion is about what the meaning of the
"OSGeo project" label is.<br>
<br>
I don't think anyone has questioned the quality of the
software, here. However, one of the aims of labeling a
project an OSGeo project is to give a certain level of
guarantee to potential users that this software _project_
respects a series of criteria that are considered important
to ensure a long-term sustainability of that project.
Putting one person's name in the statutes of a project and
designating that person as the one who has ultimate decision
rights (even if these decisions are always based on quality
criteria), leaves the question of what would happen if that
person lands under the proverbial bus.<br>
<br>
A more collective governance structure is seen by many as
more sustainable in the long run. Similar debates have gone
on for ages in Debian, for example, about team-based
maintaining of packages vs individual maintainers.<br>
<br>
What I personally haven't really understood, yet, is what
the rasdaman community is really afraid of. If the community
works as well as described, why would the creation of a
PSC-like structure create such problems ?<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Moritz</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre cols="80">--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
<a href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann" target="_blank">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a>
mail: <a href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de" target="_blank">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>
tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="+494212003178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-3178</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="+49421200493178" target="_blank">+49-421-200-493178</a>
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
<a href="http://www.rasdaman.com" target="_blank">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com" target="_blank">baumann@rasdaman.com</a>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="+491735837882" target="_blank">+49-173-5837882</a>
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
</pre>
</span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>