<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>An emerging trend is for federated data services that support a common logical data model for the domain in question.</div><div><br></div><div>This is typically done via GML Application Schema. Some examples are GeoSciML, WaterML, AvXML etc.</div><div><br></div><div>In many cases, no one organisation can manage and support data required, particularly for regional / global analysis.</div><div><br></div><div>We are finding that source data is maintained by many organisations in differing native formats, data structures/models, semantic representations etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Currently there is considerable time wasted in processing data from many organisations to get it in a form that is suitable for analysis.</div><div><br></div><div>The GML Application Schema approach helps to overcome this issue to a large extent, with data providers mapping their internal data to an agreed logical data model.</div><div><br></div><div>A binary format that supports this concept may be useful.</div><div><br></div><div>Bruce</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, 21 August 2013 10:01 AM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no">nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no</a>" <<a href="mailto:nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no">nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:standards@lists.osgeo.org">standards@lists.osgeo.org</a> (OSGeo)" <<a href="mailto:standards@lists.osgeo.org">standards@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [OSGeo-Standards] An idea about a compressed binary geometry format<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr">Sounds interesting, any alternative to BinaryXML would be welcome.
<div><br></div><div style="">The header of Binary XML was very complicated, extending into information such as endian order. I got the impression it was set up around with a server bias. The result was a specification which was difficult to implement as a client, and has
seen only one implementation in open source products I am aware of (in the gvSig community).</div><div style=""><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Nicklas Avén <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no" target="_blank">nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hallo<br><br>
I do not know if this list is the right place so that will be my first<br>
question.<br><br>
I have a naive idea about a compressed binary format for geometries.<br><br>
I have done some work to sketch what it is about.<br><br>
The name so far is TWKB (Tiny WKB)<br><br>
Can this list be the right place to discuss this format. It is just an<br>
embryo, and my hope is that it can be something designed by and hard<br>
connected to the FOSS4G-community.<br><br><br>
What is done is:<br><br>
A draft of a spec:<br><a href="https://github.com/nicklasaven/TWKB/blob/master/twkb.md" target="_blank">https://github.com/nicklasaven/TWKB/blob/master/twkb.md</a><br><br>
including ideas from Evan Rouault and Oliver Tonnhofer<br><br><br>
Demos:<br>
Streaming TWKB from PostGIS to Leaflet via websocket.<br><a href="http://178.79.156.122/twkb_node/" target="_blank">http://178.79.156.122/twkb_node/</a><br><br>
Streaming TWKB-aggregates (tiles created on the fly) from PostGIS to<br>
Leaflet<br><a href="http://178.79.156.122/twkb_agg" target="_blank">http://178.79.156.122/twkb_agg</a><br><br>
A page to compare twkb in timing and size with geoJSON directly from<br>
PostGIS.<br><a href="http://178.79.156.122/twkb_test" target="_blank">http://178.79.156.122/twkb_test</a><br><br><br>
Examples of implementation.<br>
The PostGIS part is in the trunk:<br><a href="http://svn.osgeo.org/postgis/trunk/" target="_blank">http://svn.osgeo.org/postgis/trunk/</a><br><br>
The client parts is exemplified here:<br><a href="https://github.com/nicklasaven/twkb_web" target="_blank">https://github.com/nicklasaven/twkb_web</a><br><br><br>
So, first, can this list host discussions about TWKB (or whatever name<br>
it gets)?<br>
If not where should it go?<br><br>
Second, any feedback is very welcome<br><br><br><br>
Best Regards<br><br>
Nicklas Avén<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Standards mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></span></body></html>