[Ica-osgeo-labs] Website feedback

Sun Aug 30 12:15:22 PDT 2015

Hi all,

I am really excited about the discussion between Ziki and Andy and many
others.
THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WHY SOMEONE SHOULD JOIN. You can never read all this
arguments if you are not member of this network. 
I think we forgot this very simple reason. We can learn a lot from these
discussions.

Best regards
Nikos 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Nikos Lambrinos
Associate Professor
Dept. of Primary Education
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki
Greece, GR-54124
Tel. +30 2310 991201
Email: labrinos at eled.auth.gr
Web pages: http://labrinos.webpages.auth.gr/digital_geography/
                    http://www.digital-earth.edu.gr/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ica-osgeo-labs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:ica-osgeo-labs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Siki Zoltan
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 10:05 PM
To: Andy Anderson
Cc: ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] Website feedback

Dear Andy,

I think we will not agree. If nobody else is interested in this discussion,
let's finish it.

My last comment:
The OSGeo/FOSS4G projects are always looking for contributors.
By the help of Geo4All network OSGeo projects can get more contribution not
only in the form of trainings, advocations but research from the
universities.

If you use a ready and well tested function of an open source GIS (which
function can be very important from your researcher point of view) it is not
a research FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A FOSS4G PROJECT.
If you publish your research results and mention that OS GIS was used is an
advocation FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A FOSS4G PROJECT.

That is my last 2 cents,

Zoltan

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015, Andy Anderson wrote:

> But we?re talking about reasons why any university should choose to
establish such a lab, are we not? These can be very broad, to quote the
GeoForAll page: ?The goal of the initiative is to promote and enhance
education, research and service activities carried out by these stakeholders
in the area of Open Geospatial Science & Applications all over the world?.
Such research is not specifically defined, and could include application as
well as development. In my experience the former drives the latter.
>
> In any case, I think my rewrite of Reason #5 does include the type of
research you are describing.
>
> ? Andy
>
> On Aug 30, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Siki Zoltan <siki at agt.bme.hu> wrote:
>
>> Dear Andy,
>>
>> I don't think so the it is a very specific line of research. We are not
now speaking about the whole GIS community, we are speaking about
universities where Geo4All labs may be establised.
>>
>> Probably more than 99 percent of the users of FOSS4G software won't look
in the source code, but they have the chance.
>>
>> I have learnt a lot from the source code of other programmers...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Zoltan
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Andy Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Zoltan,
>>>
>>> I understand now, but you are referring to a very specific line of
research. You wrote the reason #5 as if it referred to all scientific
research. I do believe for this purpose it needs to be generally written. I
thank you for the inspiration, though.
>>>
>>> ? Andy
>>>
>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 3:34 PM, Siki Zoltan <siki at agt.bme.hu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Andy,
>>>>
>>>> you misunderstand me, when your research aim is to improve an algorithm
built in the software or you would like to develop a new algorith you must
know the details built in the software.
>>>> I didn't say that the proprietary software are not useful. I say open
source for the above purpose is more useful.
>>>>
>>>> Zoltan
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Andy Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or, following other suggestions after I finished my tract,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reason #5: In scientific research the sharing and reproducibility of
methods and results is essential. Open-source software and standard formats
provide the broadest means for the distribution of analytical procedures and
data, and therefore the greatest opportunity to ensure their accuracy
through review by other scientists and to become the foundations of new and
collaborative research. It can also provide a low-cost way to verify
calculations made by proprietary applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> ? Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Andy Anderson <aanderson at amherst.edu>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don?t agree with the statement ?In scientific researches black
boxes (commercial software) are not so useful?, and I doubt that most people
would accept the principle that ?One have to know all the details of the
used algorithms (source code) to make the right conclusions?. They fly in
the face of the reality of scientific research, which is built on the
efforts of many people that we trust for for various reasons, in particular
that they have become standard approaches in this or that subfield of
science. Most people are trying to build on that without rebuilding the
wheel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?Black box? equipment is endemic in science exactly because they are
useful. Many people here probably use GPS devices in their research. Anyone
have one that they built themselves? Possibly a few, but how many actually
built the GPS chip and wrote the signal processing software? We trust these
devices, even though we know there can be issues. Part of being a scientist
is watching for inconsistencies and working around them if possible. Most of
the time this will be due to user error but occasionally it will require
starting over with new equipment, perhaps even from a different company if
you get a lot of lemons from them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It?s also idealistic that one should know ?the details of the used
algorithms?. Most scientists will only know what an algorithm is used for,
and perhaps the basic principle behind it, but most won?t know or care about
its details. It is generally accepted that one can trust the implementation
of software that has had a lot of eyes on it, commercial or open source, at
least until it fails in an obvious way (and user error is always the first
place to look).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Commercial software will generally tell you the algorithm they are
using and sometimes even the package they are using, and it often comes down
to open-source software anyway, e.g. ?Many software are built on top of
BLAS-compatible libraries, including Armadillo, LAPACK, LINPACK, GNU Octave,
Mathematica, MATLAB, NumPy, and R.? (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Linear_Algebra_Subprograms ). These
packages have a long history and extensive testing (by NIST, no less ?
http://math.nist.gov/mcsd/Reports/95/yearly/node59.html ). Nevertheless
there may still be errors that creep in, e.g. with new hardware. Their
implementations, whether commercial or open-source, can also have errors.
And there can also be errors in how they are used. Nevertheless they are
generally trusted across the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly every scientific paper should be describing the tools used,
whether Matlab or R or custom software, and provide references to the
algorithms applied, to give other scientists the opportunity to critique the
results. Good reviewers will make sure this is true before a paper is
published, and call out well-known issues (I would certainly look askance at
the use of Excel for nonlinear data fitting ?
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~bdm25/excel2007.pdf ). But the probability is
very small that a reviewer will demand the work be performed with
open-source software rather than commercial software or that the author
explain standard algorithms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The more general observation that I?ve heard in this area is that
one?s calculations should be performed with multiple pieces of software
(commercial or otherwise) to ensure consistency, a form of the repeatability
required for scientific acceptance. In the absence of obvious errors or
inconsistencies I doubt many people do that themselves, let alone go digging
into open source code to review what it?s doing. And only computational
scientists are likely to do the latter, not the research-focused scientist.
There?s too much of a rush to get the results and publish it, so they?ll
just look for another black box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an opportunity here to focus on reproducibility, which is
often overlooked in science (see, for example, the very recent news here:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-
on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results ). While confirming other?s
results is generally considered boring, there?s always the opportunity to
contradict them, which is very exciting ( see, for example, this famous
case:
http://blogs.umass.edu/econnews/2013/09/24/media-buzz-over-reinhart-rogoff-c
ritique-continues/ ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I would suggest the following statement instead:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reason #5: In scientific research the reproducibility of results is
essential, and that includes data produced by analytical software.
Open-source software can provide a low-cost way to verify calculations made
by commercial applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Siki Zoltan <siki at agt.bme.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Charles,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would add a 5th reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reason #5: In scientific researches black boxes (commercial
software) are not so useful. One have to know all the details of the used
algorithms (source code) to make the right conclusions, change an algoritm
(source code) to get new experiences. it can be done only with open source
software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Universities and Geo4All labs are research centers, too.
>>>>>>> I hope you understand my point, may be my text have to be edited.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Zoltan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Charles Schweik wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Suchith, all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patrick Hogan made some helpful edits to the text I have on my 
>>>>>>>> lab's site (thanks Patrick!), and I then edited it a little 
>>>>>>>> more toward some possible useful language for the 'Why 
>>>>>>>> universities should join' text. I'm sure there are other points to
be made, but its a start. The text is attached.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suchith, not sure who is leading the update to the GeoForAll 
>>>>>>>> page on this topic...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Charlie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jeff McKenna 
>>>>>>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On twitter just now a community leader made a comment that our 
>>>>>>>>> website (
>>>>>>>>> http://www.geoforall.org) doesn't clearly point out the 
>>>>>>>>> benefits for a university.  We outline "How to Join" ( 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.geoforall.org/how_to_join/), but not really "Why to
Join".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought this was a good point, and now that we all 
>>>>>>>>> understand it more, it might be good to highlight this on the
site.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
>>>>> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
>>> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>
_______________________________________________
ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs