[Board] [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: geo4all relationship

Thu Nov 26 10:02:15 PST 2015

Dear All,

I am traveling now and haven't had time to go through all the mails in
this thread. Maybe what I say below could be a bit off-topic.

OSGeo as a foundation has been inclusive and diverse. This is evident
from the presentations at our FOSS4G events of contents the our OSGeo-Live
which include several software projects that are not OSGeo projects.
I think Geo4All takes up a similar position as our FOSS4G events
and OSGeo-Live to include projects that are not a part of OSGeo.

I have noticed some comments to the effect that OSGeo seems to about 
OSGeo "products"
and I do not think that is true (as evident from our FOSS4G events and 
OSGeo LIve
package).

There has also been some talk about where do we draw a line on what we 
can include under
the umbrella of Geo4All. I believe that Geo4All is an initiative to 
promote Free and Open Source
Geospatial Software. So any geospatial software that requires a 
proprietary software or
library to be installed before it can be executed can neither be a part 
of OSGeo nor Geo4All.
Also, any software that is not made available under a valid Open Source 
License can neither
be a part of OSGeo nor Geo4All, I think.

Geo4All as an integral part of OSGeo (Scenario 1 and 1B) or OSGeo being 
one of the "partners"
of OSGeo is something that the Geo4All advisory board has to decide.

OSGeo as a foundation, has a priority of supporting/promoting software 
that are its integral part.
OSGeo has no issues with other open source software "products" being a 
part of events and
initiatives supported/fostered by OSGeo.

I would also like to mention that OSGeo student awards that were 
presented at FOSS4G-2015 are
for innovative use of OSGeo "products" and as a foundation it is one of 
ways to promote wider
use of OSGeo "products".

Does ICA or ISPRS have some in-house projects or initiatives that need 
to be included as a part of
Geo4All initiative? Or is there some compelling reason why Geo4All needs 
to be an independent
initiatives despite fact that the "partners" have concluded an MoU to be 
"equal" partners in
promoting Free and Open Software, Data, Standards for Geospatial Education?

As I have mentioned before, Scenario 1 reflects what is presently shown 
in the OSGeo and Geo4All
websites. Scenario 1B is a variant and only does away with the OSGeo Edu 
Committee. And my preference would be for either 1 or 1B over Scenario 2.

Best

Venka

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship

On 2015/11/27 0:05, Sanghee Shin wrote:
> +1
>
>> 2015. 11. 26., 오후 8:36, Arnulf Christl <arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net> 작성:
>>
>> Dear OSGeo Board,
>> if OSGeo does not manage to reactivate/reinvigorate the Education
>> Committee, then we will not have one. OSGeo is a do-ocracy, right? This
>> is how OSGeo functions. Forcing something in place just because will
>> probably not work.
>>
>> In my opinion we should let Geo4All go where it wants to go, otherwise
>> chances are high we restrict it's potential. At the same time I am
>> absolutely sure that Geo4All will continue to focus on good, solid Open
>> Source software as we promote it through OSGeo. If Geo4All were
>> something that emerged "outside" of OSGeo then I would absolutely push
>> for joining and supporting the initiative. Does this make any sense?
>>
>>
>> Geo4All Advisory Board,
>> I would like to keep the close bounds to OSGeo - simply because it is
>> the Open Source compass for geospatial Open Source and therefore the
>> natural place to go to for selecting best practice technology for
>> education.
>>
>> Wrt. to the lab name "Geo4All Partners" sounds like a good middle path.
>> I would refrain from externalizing Geo4All as a separate legal entity.
>> This will only eat up resources and divert energy from what we want to
>> achieve. Maybe at a later stage (and with too much funding coming in)
>> this may make sense, right now I do not really see the need (or funding
>> or volunteers).
>>
>> Having responsible and thoroughly "Open Source" educated people act as
>> OSGeo liaison officer totally makes sense (as suggested Venka, Helena).
>>
>> Which option does this best map to? Not sure, seems like 2 would make
>> more sense? I do believe that option 1 and 1b look like OSGeo is trying
>> to "grab a hold of" Geo4All. Instead I would like to see us "let go of
>> it" and at the same time have the confidence that it will always stick
>> with OSGeo's mission, because there is solid involvement from OSGeo
>> folks and simply because our Open Source software is the core asset for
>> the labs.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arnulf
>>
>> On 18.11.2015 08:01, Suchith Anand wrote:
>>> Thanks Jeff, Charlie, Venka, Jeroen for your inputs and ideas. I am sure
>>> with the combined wisdom of everyone , we will find the best solution.
>>> As Charlie said we can keep promoting OSGeo and all OSGeo official
>>> projects and keep  partnership with educational (and research) efforts
>>> with other open projects (who might one day join OSGeo). We need to keep
>>> doors of collaborations open as it is key for growth.
>>>
>>> Building Bridges (the theme of FOSS4G Bonn) is very appropriate and also
>>> good point to think for next stage (10th Anniversary) of OSGeo's growth.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Suchith
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* GeoForAll-ab [geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of
>>> Jeroen Ticheler [jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:47 AM
>>> *To:* GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be
>>> needed: [Board] geo4all relationship
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I prefer option 1 as it seems to be the logical next step. However I
>>> would suggest the OSGeo board to not force a big process of change onto
>>> the geo4all committee. This transition could go step by step. Options 1B
>>> and 2 are not optimal I think.
>>> Greeting,
>>> Jeroen
>>>
>>>
>>> Op 18 nov. 2015 om 02:11 heeft Venkatesh Raghavan
>>> <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>>
>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> I prefer  Scenario 1 as it reflects more closely to the information
>>>> presently available
>>>> on the OSGeo Website. I think Scenario 1 is less confusion as it also
>>>> clarifies the status
>>>> of former Edu Committee.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Venka
>>>>
>>>> On 2015/11/18 6:17, Charles Schweik wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I'd like to hear the opinions of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I lean toward 1b and want to keep rules 'lean'. I want to promote OSGeo and
>>>>> OSGeo official projects, but I also want to make sure we keep strong
>>>>> partnership with educational (and research) efforts with other projects
>>>>> like NASA WorldWind.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't want rules around organization hinder good strong open
>>>>> geospatial science and education collaboration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Charlie
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Suchith,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I actually wrote option 1b, so I can tell you that this option only works
>>>>>> if the entire GeoForAll initiative agrees to focus on OSGeo as its
>>>>>> education committee.  This document was drafted because it seems that
>>>>>> GeoForAll, as great as the initiative is for education, may not always have
>>>>>> OSGeo in their interests (as many GeoForAll members have stated recently,
>>>>>> that they should not be forced to promote OSGeo, they should have a
>>>>>> choice).  Well, this document was created because OSGeo really needs a
>>>>>> committee/existing initiative to always promote OSGeo.  So option1b can
>>>>>> only work if the entire GeoForAll initiative agrees to always promote
>>>>>> OSGeo, as its education "arm" of the foundation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So before you overwhelmingly choose option 1b, please realize that this
>>>>>> would mean that GeoForAll would be responsible for always promoting OSGeo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So maybe GeoForAll needs to debate what is actually its focus, is it
>>>>>> OSGeo, or, is it in fact nothing to do with OSGeo, because it promotes
>>>>>> "open" through many different tools and organizations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I want Option 1b, but at the same time, I also want GeoForAll
>>>>>> to realize that the OSGeo foundation needs a committee/group/initiative to
>>>>>> always be out there promoting OSGeo.  If this is a problem, then Option 1b
>>>>>> unfortunately will not work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope this explanation helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-11-17 4:34 PM, Suchith Anand wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Phillip,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, if Option 1b gets more votes, then  in this scenario Geo4All would
>>>>>>> be required to name an officer who would liaise with the OSGeo Board (as
>>>>>>> every other OSGeo committee does). Then my suggestion is that someone who
>>>>>>> is an OSGeo Board member (Venka or Helena) is nominated for this role.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suchith
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Phillip Davis [pdavis at delmar.edu]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:02 PM
>>>>>>> To: Suchith Anand; Helena Mitasova; GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: [Board]
>>>>>>> geo4all relationship
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like 1a provides easiest implementation path and keeps GeoForAll
>>>>>>> unique identity.  Option 1b provides more autonomy for GeoForAll, but the
>>>>>>> requirement for an officer is somewhat problematic, since that would be
>>>>>>> more or less permanent and might entail much footwork?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My vote is 1a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Phillip Davis
>>>>>>> Director GeoAcademy (http://fossgeo.org)
>>>>>>> Professor: Del Mar College Department of Computer
>>>>>>> Science-Engineering-Advanced Technology
>>>>>>> Program Lead: Geographic Information System & Cartography - Geospatial
>>>>>>> Technology Program
>>>>>>> 101 Baldwin, VB 153 | Corpus Christi, TX 78404
>>>>>>> 361.698.1476 | 361.698.1475 | 361.698.1479 fax
>>>>>>> pdavis at delmar.edu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ALL THESE WORLDS…ARE YOURS…EXCEPT TEXAS…ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: GeoForAll-ab [mailto:geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Suchith Anand
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:05 PM
>>>>>>> To: Helena Mitasova; GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed:
>>>>>>> [Board] geo4all relationship
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Helena. Please all AB members provide feedback and vote on their
>>>>>>> choice of scenario by 30th Nov 2015.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also Regional Chairs please inform your views on  Regional chairs being
>>>>>>> constituted within the OSGeo Foundation structure if there is a majority
>>>>>>> vote for Scenario 1? Yes/No
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suchith
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Helena Mitasova [hmitaso at ncsu.edu]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:41 PM
>>>>>>> To: GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>> Cc: Suchith Anand
>>>>>>> Subject: IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: [Board] geo4all
>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suchith,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for presenting the GeoForAll OSGeo Relationship < https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship> document to
>>>>>>> the community.
>>>>>>> I noticed that the link to the actual document was somewhat burried in
>>>>>>> the forwarded email where it could be overlooked. I am resending it at
>>>>>>> least for the advisory board because after discussion a decision and vote
>>>>>>> on one of the options (perhaps with some revisions) will be needed.
>>>>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:19 AM, Suchith Anand <
>>>>>>>> Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Jody . I have added more details into the wiki and forwarding to
>>>>>>>> Geo4All advisory Board and community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Geo4All Advisory Board and Regional chairs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recently there had been  discussions on the future directions for
>>>>>>>> Geo4All  .There were different opinions and hence we arranged a meeting at
>>>>>>>> Como to discuss this and find a way forward. Following lot of discussions
>>>>>>>> among our members in our mail lists  etc and the meeting at Como[1] that
>>>>>>>> was led by Charlie Schweik ,the consensus was that OSGeo Education and
>>>>>>>> Curriculum Committee and GeoForAll are the same and it is now GeoForAll:
>>>>>>>> OSGeo's Education and Curriculum Effort as reflected in OSGeo website at
>>>>>>>> http://www.osgeo.org/education . Venka has also presented this outcomes
>>>>>>>> at FOSS4G Seoul [2]. Geo4All will continue to be inclusive and include all
>>>>>>>> partners that OSGeo Board have MOUs with for expanding this OSGeo' Geo4All
>>>>>>>> education initiative and warmly welcome everyone who are following the
>>>>>>>> principles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Geo4All initiative was started with the key aim to build up OSGeo's
>>>>>>>> education aims by collaborating with like minded organisations and it is
>>>>>>>> one of the most successful initiatives that we have undertaken. OSGeo Board
>>>>>>>> has made separate MoUs with both ICA and ISPRS for expanding Geo4All and
>>>>>>>> universities,SMEs, government organisations etc worldwide have trusted the
>>>>>>>> MoUs that OSGeo provided and setup labs and joined the network , so it is
>>>>>>>> important we provide strong continuity and focus. MoUs have to be respected
>>>>>>>> and the momentum created need to build upon with clear direction and focus.
>>>>>>>> It is important that proper structures are in place and steps need to be
>>>>>>>> taken to ensure the smooth transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's Education and
>>>>>>>> keep collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other organisations that OSGeo has
>>>>>>>> MoU with. This will also make sure the efforts put in by lot of  volunteers
>>>>>>>> for this is build upon for the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Geo4All had been working hard to expand OSGeo education activities
>>>>>>>> globally .Members have been running courses,training events,workshops
>>>>>>>> using OSGeo software, MOOC programs (that benefitted thousands of students
>>>>>>>> globally) etc have raised OSGeo education efforts globally. Geo4All members
>>>>>>>> have been actively contributing to OSGeo Curriculum development effort and
>>>>>>>> will continue to expand this by having more course materials in various
>>>>>>>> OSGeo software added to the OSGeo education repository for everyone to make
>>>>>>>> use of for their teaching and education.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We will welcome and include all partners that OSGeo Board have MOUs with
>>>>>>>> for expanding this OSGeo' Geo4All education initiative and warmly welcome
>>>>>>>> everyone who are following the principles. That way the OSGeo Board will be
>>>>>>>> able to keep expanding the initiative and to make MoUs with other
>>>>>>>> organisations etc as we are doing now (ICA, ISPRS) and also in future .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So steps need to be taken to ensure the smooth transition to GeoForAll
>>>>>>>> as OSGeo's Education and keep collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other
>>>>>>>> organisations that OSGeo has MoU with. This will also make sure the efforts
>>>>>>>> put in by lot of  volunteers for this is build upon for the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some steps that are outlined below and looking through the
>>>>>>>> options - Scenario 1 seems to  be best option based on the Como discussions
>>>>>>>> for ensure the smooth transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's Education and keep
>>>>>>>> collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other organisations that OSGeo has MoU
>>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this case, the Geo4All Advisory Board would include representatives
>>>>>>>> from our partners like ICA, ISPRS etc. Geo4All Advisory Board comprises of
>>>>>>>> representatives from ICA, ISPRS, OSGeo and other organisations that join in
>>>>>>>> future. As a partner in the Geo4All initiative, a Project Steering
>>>>>>>> Committee (PSC) comprising of VP OSGeo Foundation (Education and Curriculum
>>>>>>>> Project) and other representatives (e.g Regional Chairs of Geo4All) need to
>>>>>>>> be constituted within the OSGeo Foundation. The PSC could liaise with
>>>>>>>> Geo4All Advisory Board to evolve way and means to achieve mutual goals and
>>>>>>>> objectives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charlie Schweik as VP OSGeo Foundation (Education and Curriculum
>>>>>>>> Project) and other representatives (e.g Regional Chairs of Geo4All)  please
>>>>>>>> let us know if you are happy to being  constituted within the OSGeo
>>>>>>>> Foundation structure?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> May i request all AB members and Regional Chairs to also send their
>>>>>>>> suggestions on this, so we can  move forward. It is important that proper
>>>>>>>> structures are in place and steps need to be taken to ensure the smooth
>>>>>>>> transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's Education and keep collaborating with
>>>>>>>> ICA, ISPRS and other organisations that OSGeo has MoU with. This will also
>>>>>>>> make sure the efforts put in by lot of  volunteers for this is build upon
>>>>>>>> for the future.Please send your inputs before 30th Nov 2015 .Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suchith
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_EU_Como_2015_Preconference_meeting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [2] http://www.slideshare.net/VenkateshRaghavan1/g4-a-newver2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Board [board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Jody Garnett
>>>>>>>> [jody.garnett at gmail.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:25 PM
>>>>>>>> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Board] geo4all relationship
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have added an entry to our wiki for:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Revised Education Committee mandate pending clarification of GeoForAll
>>>>>>>> OSGeo Relationship with Geo4All advisory board
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Venkatesh Raghavan and Jeff McKenna are our representatives on the
>>>>>>>> GeoForAll advisory board.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for taking taking on what is an important relationship for our
>>>>>>>> foundation objectives.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>>>>>>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>>>>>>> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
>>>>>>>> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
>>>>>>>> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
>>>>>>>> University of Nottingham.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>>>>>>> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
>>>>>>>> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
>>>>>>>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
>>>>>>>> permitted by UK legislation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
>>>>>>>> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Helena Mitasova
>>>>>>> Professor at the Department of Marine,
>>>>>>> Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
>>>>>>> and Center for Geospatial Analytics
>>>>>>> North Carolina State University
>>>>>>> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
>>>>>>> hmitaso at ncsu.edu
>>>>>>> http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are
>>>>>>> sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records
>>>>>>> Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and
>>>>>>> may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in
>>>>>>> error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
>>>>>>> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
>>>>>>> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University
>>>>>>> of Nottingham.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>>>>>> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
>>>>>>> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
>>>>>>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
>>>>>>> permitted by UK legislation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>>>>>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Confidentiality Notice:  The information contained in this email,
>>>>>>> including attachments, may be
>>>>>>> privileged, proprietary, and/or confidential as provided by law.  The
>>>>>>> information in this email is intended
>>>>>>> only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If
>>>>>>> you have received this
>>>>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender by replying to the email
>>>>>>> message and immediately
>>>>>>> return the email, attachments, and any and all copies to the sender.  If
>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient
>>>>>>> of this email and received it in error, please be advised that you may be
>>>>>>> subject to civil liability for any
>>>>>>> use of privileged, proprietary, and/or confidential information contained
>>>>>>> herein.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>>>>>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>>>>>> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
>>>>>>> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
>>>>>>> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
>>>>>>> University of Nottingham.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>>>>>> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
>>>>>>> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
>>>>>>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
>>>>>>> permitted by UK legislation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>>>>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>>>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>>>
>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>>>
>>> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
>>> message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
>>> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
>>> University of Nottingham.
>>>
>>> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
>>> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
>>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
>>> permitted by UK legislation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>>>
>> -- 
>> http://metaspatial.net
>> Spatially enabling your business.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> 신상희
> ---
> Shin, Sanghee
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
> http://www.gaia3d.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board