[postgis-users] PostGIS/ArcWhatever Functionality Matrix, HowTo type, etc.

[Eric Randall]

P Kishor wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Eric Randall <eprand at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Has anyone put together anything like this?  Remember the ArcGIS Desktop
>> functionality matrix, which I think originally was an excel type file
>> but now is a pdf.
>
> Well, shouldn't it really be a PostGIS/Postgres vs. ArcSDE/<rdbms of
> choice> functionality comparison?
>
Maybe, but after thinking about it, it should be more of a 
PostGIS/ArcGIS-ArcTools functional equivalence howto with examples.
While PostGIS functionality is in the database, the bulk of ArcGIS 
functionality resides with the client software rather than the database.
So I would want to compare how equivalent tasks are accomplished in each.
 
> Granted, there is much you can do with PostGIS that you can also do
> with ArcGIS, but ArcGIS (also a collective and confusing name for many
> products) ArcMap for example is geared for desktop. And I have to
> admit, albeit somewhat grudgingly, that some things in ArcGIS are
> pretty nicely done -- a very nice and detailed help system, a mostly
> intuitive interface, and a really amazing Modelbuilder, likes of which
> _I_ haven't seen in any other software.
>
Yes, that modelbuilder is pretty slick, especially as a scriptbuilder.  
My favorite PostGIS Modelbuilder
is SciTE  :-)
> That said,
>
>> I think it would be cool to have available a PostGIS/ArcInfo
>> Functionality Matrix type thing that not only outlines funtionality but
>> also tells how to do it.  I've used PostGIS to perform many of the
>> functions only available with ArcInfo licensing, and also do things that
>> are more difficult to do with ArcInfo.  Anyone else think this would be
>> useful?  I'll be happy to put it together but there are probably lots of
>> folks doing things that I'm not that could contribute.  What do you 
>> think?
>
> Yes, such a matrix would be really very nice. If you start work on it
> on a wiki site (maybe the PostGIS wiki, if there is one), then others
> can contribute to it as well.
>
> Many thanks,
>
Thanks for your ideas.  I'll see if I can get something going.
Other thoughts, please...anyone?
>
>