<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>There was an argument of 'no data before metadata'. Cool, we can deal
<br>with that. So we built <a href="http://data.freemap.in/" target="_blank">http://data.freemap.in/</a> -- which, so far as I'm<br>aware, had no serious complaints against it. It's been there for Many<br>Months -- and no one has used it, or organized around it, presumably
<br>because it is not as feature-filled as GeoNetwork or something.<br><br>But why does it need to be Feature-filled? There are hundreds of<br>datasets out there -- disparate, hard to find, managed by agencies who<br>love to publish data but haven't the time to market it. OSGeo could take
<br>the position of sheparding this data into the public eye, but so far<br>this route hasn't been taken.</blockquote><div> </div><div>I think that one of the strongest arguments for GeoNetwork is simply that GeoNetwork is an OSGeo project. This comes down to if we believe that part of our mission should be to showcase our software.
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>So, most people who have data don't need hosting. (Not all, but I<br>
haven't identified any for whom this isn't true yet.) Instead, it's<br>possible that they need their data provided as services -- WMS, WFS,<br>etc.?</blockquote><div>I think that one use case is situations where people are getting offered hosting or whatever by companies like Google, but are uncomfortable using a corporation in instances where a non-profit foundation is much more palatable.
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>So perhaps instead the geodata committee should take a lead on data<br>licensing. Except... all the licensing questions are totally up in the
<br>air, jurisdictional in nature (solving the question for US-based<br>companies doesn't help OpenStreetMap and vice versa) and, most<br>importantly, untested by law: so even the most experienced intellectual<br>property lawyer is only going to be able to give you a 'best guess'
<br>combined with a promise to be on your side in a court battle when it<br>happens. (I know this mostly because I *have* done this, and gotten<br>exactly that answer: "Here's our best guess, but there's no case law, so
<br>there's no real way of knowing until there is.") Perhaps with enough<br>money, we could find a lawyer willing and suitably confident in their<br>field to offer legal advice for the community... but money doesn't grow
<br>on trees.<br></blockquote><div>Legal clarification guidance-- add it to the wiki. We should try to put all the brain storming there so we have one list brought together of everything that we *could* be so that we can really look at it and decide what we *should* be.
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>There are a couple of efforts out there in putting together globally<br>reusable data projects. OpenStreetMap is the big one -- but has always
<br>had a decidedly anti-OSGeo streak (unfortunately, in my opinion).<br>Lately, I've taken to helping them out using OSGeo/TelaScience<br>resources *anyway*, but if I mentioned that the server was hosted by<br>OSGeo, I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant pushback against
<br>using the resources. It wouldn't be the first time I've felt that to be<br>the case (even if it isn't provably true).<br></blockquote><div> <br>What are the hurdles to this? Why is there an (perceived or real) anti-OSGeo streak? Get this stuff in the lists.
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>I'm assuming that at least some of these things are within the goals of
<br>some members of the committee, but I have no idea which ones, or how we<br>want to proceed -- and until I do, I have no idea how to act within the<br>goals of the committee, or if I'm acting directly in counter to it.
<br>Without that, the things that I've done are just toys, because without a<br>group (hivemind) behind them, they're just my projects, and not those of<br>OSGeo.</blockquote><div>This is why I want to detail and filter through what it is the hivemind holds in common. To know if you are working for our against the goals of the group should be clear by looking at the mission of the group. And actually, using the current Mission Statement, what you are doing is directly related to both "Promote public access to state-collected geodata" and "Run a repository of Open Geodata". While you may not see the work that you do as directly "OSGeo", you are building structure (not just toys) that a hive can get around (or perhaps might not want to get around) and continue to promote.
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>I look forward to a day when this sitaution will change, and look<br>forward to hearing from others how they want to help move open data
<br>efforts forward.</blockquote><div><br>Thank you very much for your comments Chris. I can tell that you've felt some frustration with this whole thing.<br><br>David<br> </div></div>