[GRASS-dev] grass toolboxes idea continued (g.extension)

[Michael Barton]

Good point. Organizing these for developers is one thing, but there may be different approaches to how they are presented to the users.

Talking with people who have switched from ArcGIS to GRASS, one of the things I hear is that geoprocessing functions are MUCH easier to find in GRASS without the Toolbox interface used by Arc.

The different FOSS GIS packages have different approaches/philosophies about how to package and present their tools, related to different functional goals. What might be an extra for one package could well be a core tool for another. 

Michael
____________________
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity 
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 	480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax:          480-965-7671 (SHESC),  480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu











On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:37 AM, <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org> <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:37:54 +0100
> From: Robert Szczepanek <robert at szczepanek.pl>
> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] grass toolboxes idea continued (g.extension)
> To: Benjamin Ducke <benducke at fastmail.fm>
> Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> Message-ID: <4F037532.4060307 at szczepanek.pl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> This is very good idea.
> At the moment it sounds more like useful tool for developers, not
> directly users. Mentioned projects implement common libraries and
> modules in their own style and structure. And I don't think it will
> change soon. This is however good moment to start discussion about
> unified hierarchy.
> But this can be good point to start with common tags. Such tags (simple
> to implement and transparent) will help developers build toolboxes and
> implement frameworks [1].
> 
> regards,
> Robert
> [1] http://polymeris.github.com/qgis/
> 
> W dniu 03.01.2012 21:31, Benjamin Ducke pisze:
>> Since there are at least four major FOSS desktop GIS
>> projects (GRASS, SAGA, SEXTANTE + gvSIG, QGIS + GRASS plugin),
>> each of which faces the same problem of sorting geoprocessing
>> tools into groups, I wonder: Would it be worth the effort
>> to try to establish a common hierarchy/grouping standard for
>> for geoprocessing tools across GIS? Sort of like the LSB
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base) for
>> Linux file system hierarchies?
>> 
>> I imagine this would make it much easier for users to work
>> with different FOSS GIS and always find the tools they need.
>> 
>> A common standard could also include labels and descriptions,
>> plus their translations into different languages, and of
>> course icons for GUIs.
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>