<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi Landon,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">IMO, to put another perspective on it:</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Many organisations over the years have
invested significant sums of money, time and effort into implementing spatial
tools and customising them to meet their needs.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I can think of any number of examples
over the last few decades where that investment has had to be thrown away
and reimplemented using another product. Some examples are (fill in the
blanks as you see fit):</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- A vendor ceases to be financially
viable and shuts up shop.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- A vendor is taken over by another
entity to: remove competition; purchase market share; </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> because its trendy to have one
of those in the portfolio; or any number of other reasons.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- A vendor retires a product range to
focus on a new technology, but doesn't worry about </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> providing an upgrade path.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'd say that most organisations have
been bitten by any one of these examples.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The OGC standards in particular, give
organisations a way to try and abstract their business functionality in
such a way that they will be able to swap in and out, vendor or open source
components, as they deam appropriate. If its done right they won't need
to go back to first principles and start from scratch when they decide
to do so.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">While the OGC standards may not be perfect
at the moment, they are are quite functional and are certainly based on
a solid understanding of our discipline (as a reading of the abstract documentation
will show). </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I personally think that if we are willing
to get involved, we will be able to help refine the standards and their
implementation, even if it is just by using various products and standards
and providing feedback.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I applaud the OSGeo projects that are
basing their design on the OGC standards. To me as an implementer, it just
makes good sense.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Bruce</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Landon Blake"
<lblake@ksninc.com></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">23/06/2007 02:19 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org></font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><geowanking@lists.burri.to>, "OSGeo
Discussions" <discuss@lists.osgeo.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[OSGeo-Discuss] Software Standards -
The Ugly Truth</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I’m sending this to GeoWanking and OSGeo
discuss, so I apologize in advance if your inbox gets hit with it twice.
:]</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">I've written a blog post on the OpenJUMP
blog about some of the<br>
problems with software standards.<br>
<br>
I imagine this post will make some people upset, but I think it raises<br>
some valid points. I don't think that everyone involved in open source<br>
GIS will agree with me, but I think I identify some problems with the<br>
love of standards that our of particular interest to our community.<br>
(In a way that isn't of interest to those that develop closed-source<br>
GIS programs.)<br>
<br>
At any rate, the post is a long one, so if you do read it give<br>
yourself 5 or 10 minutes. Before you flame me remember that I'm just a<br>
surveyor that has seen too much sun, and that my opinion doesn't count<br>
for a whole lot in the big scheme of things. :]<br>
<br>
You can read the post here:<br>
</font><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=http://openjump.blogspot.com/ target=_blank><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><u>http://openjump.blogspot.com/</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
<br>
The Sunburned Surveyor</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial Narrow"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial Narrow"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial Narrow"> </font>
<p><font size=3><br>
</font><font size=1 face="Arial"><b><br>
Warning:</b><br>
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.</font><font size=2><tt>_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org<br>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br>
</tt></font>
<p>
<SMx
j["퍢{N51N5;-W