GeoMoose vs. OpenLayers for specific project (Was Re: [mapserver-users] Advice for MapServer project)

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:12:58PM -0600, Bob Basques wrote:
> The setup of the interface as well as the data sources are all 
> abstracted to the point that each individual data custodian, and/or 
> service owner, can implement their respective dataset/service in their 
> own way and update it as frequently, or infrequently as they desire.

I'm not sure I understand this, or several of the other things in this
email. I'd like to understand them. Are you on the webmap-discuss list?
Would you be willing to continue the discussion there?

> Everything in GeoMoose, including the Nav tools, are considered a tool 
> or service of some sort, so it's very easy to add others to the mix.  
> The administration of the data maintenance is also a big difference 
> compared to other pacakages, because once the layer/service  is 
> implemented via GeoMoose, it's up the layer/service providor to keep it 
> maintained into the future.   Since everything is a service of some 
> sort, these services can all be maintained and authenticated in any 
> manner the custodian/owner want to use.
> 
> GeoMoose is aimed at datasets that change fairly often, on the order of 
> hours or minutes, and is intended primarily to access this type of data 
> set.  OpenLayers with it's Tiled interface seems to be intended for 
> displaying datasets that tend to be more static in nature.  Now, either 
> of the two packages can can be used for each others capabilities, but 
> GeoMoose was built from the ground up based on a asset management type 
> of business need with mapping as the visual identifier.
> 
> One last item, is that GeoMoose the interface is initiaqlized from a XML 
> file, a MAPBOOK, so setting up business specific interfaces is very 
> easy.  This XML file is even something that can be automated, so that an 
> online method of setting up a Mapping interface could be built, and is 
> something that is planned for as well.
> 
> Besides, everyone throw OpenLayers out there as an Option, I'm just 
> offering up another.  :c)

Hm, I must have missed that; I didn't see anyone mention OpenLayers as
an option explicitly. Will have to poke at my mail server and see what's
up.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta