[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open data format

[P Kishor]

On 11/13/07, Landon Blake <lblake at ksninc.com> wrote:
> Puneet,
>
> You wrote: "Should be easy to transition to. By building the new format
> on the
> structure of the Shapefile format, and *in fact*, calling it "open
> shapefiles" or some such thing, we indicate from its name that the
> transition is not that revolutionary but is evolutionary. This,
> hopefully, will bring some name-familiarity, and make the transition
> less scary."
>
> I really think you are going to run into problems using the "Shapefile"
> as part of the trademark or name for any product not sold by ESRI. I
> strongly recommend against this move. Let people adopt the
> implementation of your idea for its merits, not for name recognition
> that comes from another product line.

Good enough point to keep in mind, but not to get hung up over enough
to entangle us. Suggestions for names of the data format can be a
project in itself. "open spatial data format" or its variations could
be chosen. Still, point taken.

>
> You wrote: "ANSI standard C is still
> that magic common denominator that compiles and works predictably on
> most number of systems. I have a lot against Java, but those who love
> Java should definitely work on tools for accessing and working with
> this new format as it would only make the format more widely used and
> adopted."
>
> It sounds to me like you are really describing a tool. File formats are
> written in a binary encoding or text, not in a programming language. If
> you are designing a tool you can choose the programming language of your
> choice, but be aware that this will limit the developers that adopt the
> tool. This will be the case no matter what language you choose to use,
> whether it is C, Java, or something else.
>
> If, in contrast, you are creating a file format, then programming
> languages shouldn't really matter. Binary and text data can be accessed
> by almost all programming languages.
>
> I think you need to decide if you want a tool or a data format. It
> sounds like you are shooting more for a spatial database written in the
> C programming language that uses some form of the ESRI Shapefile as its
> underlying data storage mechanism. To me that is a tool or piece of
> software, not a format. But maybe I don't completely understand your
> goal.
>

well, I am, frankly confused.

I was quite convinced I wasn't describing a "tool" but was describing
a "format." Of course, to describe the format, I positioned it on the
"format" (the SQLite-compatible format) used and popularized by a
"tool" (SQLite, the library, which happens to be written in C). In my
mind, having the data format based on SQLite *format* for its
relational attribute handling was the real winner. In that sense,
perhaps I conflated the format and the tool. I am not well versed in
these things to I am probably already walking on thin ice, but that
shouldn't stop others.

So, forget that I mentioned C and Java... let's just concentrate on a
way of laying out data on a disk that is not too dissimilar from how
Shapefile data are laid out, except that we utilize the
SQLite-compatible binary format for relational data handling, so that
SQLite-enabled spatial tools can access this new format.

And, put this format into public domain.


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of P Kishor
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:35 AM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: idea for an OSGeo project -- a new,open
> data format
>
> Thanks everyone, for responding. Here is my "groundwork."
>
> The new format --
>
> - Should be fast. SQLite is plenty fast, and anything that simply
> "extends" the Shapefile format to inject relational capabilities
> should be pretty fast. It should definitely be faster than a
> geodatabase format (such as PostGIS/ArcSDE) and perhaps even faster
> than Shapefiles especially while accessing attribute data. DBF is
> sequential, and searching for textual information is particularly
> expensive. SQLite has been tuned to excellence. I have been working
> with it for a few years now, and it really is an amazing product,
> development community, support, and capabilities. That it is in public
> domain makes for a transfat-free icing on the cake.
>
> - Should be unencumbered by licenses and copyrights. Ideally, the new
> format could also be put back into public domain. We want to remove
> all encumbrances to encourage rapid and wide adoption.
>
> - Should be a single file. Well, some like multiple files and some
> like single files. We can achieve both objectives by using a
> tar-gzipped packaging such as Apple tends to use for much of its stuff
> (for example, its Pages wordprocessor uses a tgzipped xml file along
> with other resources for icons and pictures and stuff). Or, if speed
> is going to be affected because of gzipping and gunzipping, just a
> package format (I have no idea if this is a Unix thing or a Mac OS
> thing -- we, in the Mac world, call them packages... they appear like
> files in the Finder, and like directories in the shell).
>
> - Should be easy to transition to. By building the new format on the
> structure of the Shapefile format, and *in fact*, calling it "open
> shapefiles" or some such thing, we indicate from its name that the
> transition is not that revolutionary but is evolutionary. This,
> hopefully, will bring some name-familiarity, and make the transition
> less scary.
>
> - Frank mentions SQLite's lack of datatypes as an issue -- I guess
> that is a matter of preference. I personally quite like that freedom
> as it gives me, the application developer, complete control over what
> goes where. SQLite actually does have now a few datatypes that it
> respects, but doesn't complain about. Since all users will be
> accessing the data via an application, as long as the application is
> well defined, it should be fine.
>
> - SQLite excels at one thing that it has been entrusted to do --
> retrieve data that it has been entrusted with at extremely fast
> speeds, and maintain ACID data integrity in case of a programmatic
> catastrophe. The transactions themselves are worth their price of
> admission, which, happily, happens to be zero.
>
> - Langdon mentions Java support -- well, yes, use/work on SQLite JDBC.
> I have been using it for a few days now and find it to be a pretty
> competent conduit. Extend it, spatialize it. ANSI standard C is still
> that magic common denominator that compiles and works predictably on
> most number of systems. I have a lot against Java, but those who love
> Java should definitely work on tools for accessing and working with
> this new format as it would only make the format more widely used and
> adopted.
>
> Ok, enough for now.
>
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 8:52 AM, P Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, I am thinking, Shapefile is the de facto data standard for GIS
> > data. That it is open (albeit not Free) along with the deep and wide
> > presence of ESRI's products from the beginning of the epoch, it has
> > been widely adopted. Existence of shapelib, various language bindings,
> > and ready use by products such as MapServer has continued to cement
> > Shapefile as the format to use. All this is in spite of Shapefile's
> > inherent drawbacks, particularly in the area of attribute data
> > management.
> >
> > What if we came up with a new and improved data format -- call it
> > "Open Shapefile" (extension .osh) -- that would be completely Free,
> > single-file based (instead of the multiple .shp, .dbf, .shx, etc.),
> > and based on SQLite, giving the .osh format complete relational data
> > handling capabilities. We would require a new version of Shapelib,
> > improved language bindings, make it the default and preferred format
> > for MapServer, and provide seamless and painless import of regular
> > .shp data into .osh for native rendering. Its adoption would be quick
> > in the open source community. The non-opensource community would
> > either not give a rat's behind for it, but it wouldn't affect them...
> > they would still work with their preferred .shp until they learned
> > better. By having a completely open and Free single-file based, built
> > on SQLite, fully relational dbms capable spatial data format, it would
> > be positioned for continued improvement and development.
> >
> > Is this too crazy?
> >
> > --
> > Puneet Kishor
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> Warning:
> Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>