let's standardize sites

[Glenn C. Kroeger]

Mark Line writes:

>The non-2D-attribute issue is technical, not conceptual in the above
>sense, I think. Having a 3rd (4th, 5th, nth) dimension built into the
>GRASS sites format and processing functions allows you to do a lot without
>setting up an external database or extra manipulation routines in awk. The
>trade-off has to do with how much functionality you want to hard-wire into
>GRASS sites handling, and how much you force into external platforms. 
>
>For what it's worth, my vote would be for as little hard-wired into GRASS
>site processing as possible, plus really clean interworking with the
>platforms that were designed to handle application-dependent sets of
>(non-spatial) attributes: RIM if necessary, awk if possible, for instance. 


Mark is right about the GRASS code, there is no call to make it process
this extra information. However, the need to develop robust data formats is
a separate question.

Ideally, the best site format is a tab delimited set of columns where the
first column is a site number, the next three are x,y,z, and arbitrary
extra columns are either used or ignored by each piece of sofgtware as
appropriate. This data can go directly into most contouring packages,
presentation packages, spreadsheets, and interactive surface display
applications.

What follows is NOT a FLAME directed to Mark, but a general call for comment

If GRASS and OpenGIS are going to prosper they must accomodate the way that
new users use computers!  While you and I can use awk, such tools are
becoming anachronistic. My students want to suck the data into Wingz or
Excel and run macros, not learn the ins and outs of awk syntax. More
importantly, managers want to use data this way, and they sure as hell
aren't going to screw around with awk.

If one looks at the trend in commercial GIS, it is towards ease of use that
simulates common desktop (read Windows and Mac) software and better and
better interaction with common desktop productivity software.

If you want to know what people want, look at what they spend money on. The
problem with FREE (as opposed to OPEN) software is that it lacks this form
of directed input.

If we, the GRASS community, don't allow and encourage GRASS to grow in this
direction as well, it will become a backwater and ultimately stagnate. I
don't want to see this happen, the strengths of OpenGIS are too many to
allow this. But that means we have to address ease of use issues. The
attitude "let them use awk" is exactly what GRASS doesn't need.


Glenn C. Kroeger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Geology
Director of Environmental Studies
Trinity University, 715 Stadium Dr., San Antonio, TX 78212
(210) 736-7607
gkroeger at geology.trinity.edu