[postgis-users] Enormous file geodatabase feature class > PostgreSQL/PostGIS? + attribute column standardization app or process?

[Webb Sprague]

Hi all.

My fairly worthless $0.02

>  I know I could import the shapefiles one-by-one, but I
>  don't have an application that would standardize
>  parcel attributes going in--the standardization
>  already performed may have been done as a (tedious)
>  manual process.

Could you describe what you mean by "standardize", with an example?
And do you mean "standardized against each other" or "standardized
against a third specification"?

>  That said, does anyone have an attribute column
>  standardizer app (preferably written in Python so I
>  could tweak it), where I could feed it a field mapping
>  / lookup table of all the counties and which source
>  fields should become target fields in the merged data
>  set?

I bet you will have to write it yourself.  It sounds like a big
project.  I could be  wrong.

>  Finally, does it look like ESRI will ever open its
>  geodatabase format in the way they've opened up the
>  shapefile? I tend to doubt it, considering all the

Are you getting shapefiles or geodatabases as source data?  I see no
reason to import a shapefile into a geodb/ access thing (yuck!) as an
intermediate step.  Postgresql is very scriptable, and would be my
platform of choice for any big integration of 100's county tables.  Or
is there something I am missing?

> [ ESRI's ] stored procedures and triggers it must use to maintain
>  the consistency of the data.

Is there a description of these somewhere?  It would be nice if
someone developed a standard set of postgis triggers to maintain
topology (at least not allow inserts of malformed data), etc.

>  But still, someone could
>  do an implementation of it if the geodatabase format
>  was fully documented and opened to others like they
>  did with the shapefile.

Watch out: with open source whenever you say "someone could do X", the
obvious retort is "why don't you do it and post the code?" :)  (see
above)

>  Otherwise, I see no real commitment to
>  interoperability--with the geodatabase being ESRI's
>  format / data model / whatever you want to call it /
>  of choice.

ESRI doesn't care about making open source better, or helping people
get away from their products and fees. Period.  Why should they?