[OSGeo-Discuss] idea for an OSGeo project -- a new, open data format
Luis W. Sevilla
cresques at gmail.com
Tue Nov 20 09:48:11 PST 2007
Hi again, Gabi,
shouldn't it be a good compromise to have an spatial index added to
GML+BXML ?
greetings
Luis
Gabriel Roldán wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>nice thread, I've went roughly through half of it yet, so my concern could be
>already addressed, apologies if so.
>
>It seems to me a single format for every purpose will lead to noone good. I
>would separate concerns between what can be expected of an interchange format
>and of a backend storage facility.
>For the former, GML and BXML fit just right. BXML is meant to bring some
>benefits over the verbosity, transfer size and handling of GML and other XML
>data languages, but certainly can't do as well as a proper RDBMS or such in
>data integrity, transaction atomicity/isolation, etc.
>For the same reason one should never use shapefile for concurrent
>transactions, even if it may perform well enough for read only access.
>
>On Saturday 17 November 2007 08:08:08 pm Luis W. Sevilla wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>> +1 for GML with BXML encoding as next open standard. GML 3.* with his
>>ability to be 'profiled' seems to be on the base of almost all and
>>every OGC norm being proposed on last 2-3 years. As Rob Atkinson said to
>>me, BXML may be an encoding for GML, in a way no standard needs to be
>>modifyed to support this encoding, only implementors must add support to
>>it. At gvSIG we're currently working both on a low level library for
>>reading and writing GML 3.* + other GML alike formats, disacopled of our
>>object model, and a java port of this cubewerx BXML encoder/decoder.
>>
>>
>slight correction, the ongoing java bxml project is in no way a port of the
>cubewerx one. Afaik, we're going to support the full spec while cwxml does
>not.
>
>
>>We
>>hope to release early results by the end of 1st term next year. Maybe the
>>way of push the standard (both OGC and ISO) it's by simply implement
>>parsers and writers, and use it a widely as possible.
>>
>>
>>
>Luis++
>
>Gabriel
>
>
>> greetings
>> Luis
>>
>>Paul Spencer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cubewerx created a binary XML implementation that is open source.
>>>They claim substantial benefits, so perhaps GML plus a binary XML
>>>library could be an alternative?
>>>
>>>http://www.cubewerx.com/web/guest/bxml
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>On 15-Nov-07, at 5:21 PM, Lucena, Ivan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sampson,
>>>>
>>>>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,
>>>>
>>>>Ivan
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Discuss mailing list
>>>>Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>>>|Paul Spencer pspencer at dmsolutions.ca |
>>>
>>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>>>|Chief Technology Officer |
>>>|DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |
>>>
>>>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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