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

Lucena, Ivan ivan.lucena at pmldnet.com
Thu Nov 15 14:21:52 PST 2007


I am not a GML guru and I don't know if a binary version exists already, 
but I would imagine that HDF5 would be a excellent choice by its own 
hierarchical nature. I mean, we can use GML as a schema to store the 
data in binary format in the HDF5 format.

Best regards,


Sampson, David wrote:
> Alright,
> Here are some other thoughts.
> First off what about a open office (open base) type approach... This
> mimmics the ESRI MSAccess approach and seams to work well for non server
> environments. Also open office is a good environment for some basic
> applications.
> Next, what ever happened to the adoption of GML... Was GML not supposed
> to be the NEXT interchange fomrat?  Perhaps this is a good discussion to
> include the GML gurus in. The whole discussion of going with a binary
> GML format makes sense and GML is already used for many web mapping
> (feature) services. It sounds like a duplication of GML to me... Unless
> someone can offer a direct compare and contrast between the concept here
> and the GML/Binary GML concept.
> In either case being able to convert to and from GML would be a necesity
> for wide adoption IMHO.
> Another thought is to encourage some of the proprietary formats to open
> up. What would it take to get ESRI on board to open up the format (open
> as in free speech). What about other non-open standards? Once it's open
> then we can bring the SHP format to modern day useage. Surely much of
> the format could be salvaged.
> Besides, if you want wide adoption of an open format then why not go for
> those players who hold greatest market share.
> Some thoughts.
> -----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 09:53
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open data
> format
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the Discuss mailing list