On Wednesday 16 January 2008 04:03:02 pm Nikos Alexandris wrote:
I am (a bit) surprised that the EEA offers geo-data only in ESRI
shapefiles and .mdb (which is, if I am not wrong, closed source format).
I am willing to request an asnwer from the EEA people about "why only
closed source" and also in other formats? Is it so much work to do?
I remember there was a thread in the GRASS user list about open source
standarts (file formats, etc).
Thank you,
Nikos.
Nikos,
There is a *possibility* of opening these files with a recent GDAL on
windows... apart from that accessing MDB files can be a royal pain in the
neck. Check on the GDAL mailing list and pages for ideas.
If the EEA takes your advice it would be a nice precedent set for other
agencies.
I have a sinking feeling that the NRCS (agency responsible for soil survey in
the US) will be moving all of their data into this format in the not so
distant future... Maybe now is a good time to start lobbying.
Nikos Alexandris wrote:
> I am (a bit) surprised that the EEA offers geo-data only in ESRI
> shapefiles and .mdb (which is, if I am not wrong, closed source
> format).
Well, even if it is owned by ESRI, at least the shapefile format is
well known and widely implemented in free software. (read with OGR from
gdal.org) Of course the format has its bad limitations when used with a
modern GIS so is not ideal.
> I am willing to request an asnwer from the EEA people about "why
> only closed source" and also in other formats? Is it so much work
> to do?
Dylan:
If the EEA takes your advice it would be a nice precedent set for
other agencies.
I think when making these requests it is important not just to complain
but to point out some solution. Preferably an open format with ISO-like
support. I have no idea what the best format for that would be, or what
patents lurk within the proprietary but gdal-aware formats.
Sounds like a question for the GDAL or OSGeo lists.
Some time ago I said that I will post a question in EEA about "...why only
shapefiles and mdb's". So I did.
It took some time but I received a reply. I posted back my feedback using
some CLC tiles and I was waiting (still waiting) for a second reply (this
second is of minor importance I think).
Reading again my questions I realise that they could have been formulated
better, from a more "correct" perspective. Anyhow, here they are (my
question and the reply). If anybody is interested about contact details just
give me a sign.
> Dear Madams/ Sirs,
>
> herewith I kindly request an answer to the following question:
>
> Why are the geospatial data (available in EEA's data portal) provided
> only in closed source geo-data file formats (e.g. ESRI shapefile, .mdb
> geo-data base)?
>
> Why not also in open-source file formats?
>
> As a student, trying to satisfy my "experimental" needs, I am not in
the
> financial position to pay for proprietary softare.
>
> The alternatives (Free and Open Source) for processing and analysing
> geo-spatial data exist, and allow me to state, some of them
demonstrate
> superior performance and experience a continuous development.
>
> Students and teachers and both the academic and the scientific
community
> worldwide can benefit if EEA's geo-data are available publicly (with a
> subscription) in open source file formats.
>
>
> Thank you for your time in advance.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Nikos Alexandris.
and the reply:
Dear Nikos Alexandris,
Thank you for contacting the European Environment Agency.
Based on your e-mail, I have consulted a colleague working with
geospatial data. He has responded that shape files can be seen as an
open industry format and can be read by many open source software today.
Also DBF files also both have limitations such as support on
multilingualism (UTF8, UTF16). EEA also provide, where possible,
everything in textual or XML formats. We also provide other industrial
formats to insure we have no loss of quality or information. Soon we
will be able to provide GML, WFS formats once those formats have been
better understood by us. The amount of formats provided depends on the
cost producing them.
Please let me know if you have further questions that have not been
answered by the explanation above.
Kind regards,
...
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/About-.mdb-geo-data-base-file-format…-please-some-information-about-alternative-file-formats%21-tp14899928p15751329.html
Sent from the Grass - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Nikos Alexandris
<nikos.alexandris@felis.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
Some time ago I said that I will post a question in EEA about "...why only
shapefiles and mdb's". So I did.
It took some time but I received a reply. I posted back my feedback using
some CLC tiles and I was waiting (still waiting) for a second reply (this
second is of minor importance I think).
Reading again my questions I realise that they could have been formulated
better, from a more "correct" perspective. Anyhow, here they are (my
question and the reply). If anybody is interested about contact details just
give me a sign.
> > Dear Madams/ Sirs,
> >
> > herewith I kindly request an answer to the following question:
> >
> > Why are the geospatial data (available in EEA's data portal) provided
> > only in closed source geo-data file formats (e.g. ESRI shapefile, .mdb
> > geo-data base)?
> >
> > Why not also in open-source file formats?
> >
> > As a student, trying to satisfy my "experimental" needs, I am not in
> the
> > financial position to pay for proprietary softare.
> >
> > The alternatives (Free and Open Source) for processing and analysing
> > geo-spatial data exist, and allow me to state, some of them
> demonstrate
> > superior performance and experience a continuous development.
> >
> > Students and teachers and both the academic and the scientific
> community
> > worldwide can benefit if EEA's geo-data are available publicly (with a
> > subscription) in open source file formats.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your time in advance.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Nikos Alexandris.
and the reply:
Dear Nikos Alexandris,
>
> Thank you for contacting the European Environment Agency.
>
> Based on your e-mail, I have consulted a colleague working with
> geospatial data. He has responded that shape files can be seen as an
> open industry format and can be read by many open source software today.
> Also DBF files also both have limitations such as support on
> multilingualism (UTF8, UTF16). EEA also provide, where possible,
> everything in textual or XML formats. We also provide other industrial
> formats to insure we have no loss of quality or information. Soon we
> will be able to provide GML, WFS formats once those formats have been
> better understood by us. The amount of formats provided depends on the
> cost producing them.
>
> Please let me know if you have further questions that have not been
> answered by the explanation above.
>
>
> Kind regards,
Thanks for posting this transaction Nikos. I look forward to further
communications from the EEA.
As Hamish mentioned a couple messages up in this thread, it would be a
good idea (if it hasn't already been done) to formalize these type of
communications with government agencies to lobby for open formats.
Thanks for posting this transaction Nikos. I look forward to further
communications from the EEA.
As Hamish mentioned a couple messages up in this thread, it would be a
good idea (if it hasn't already been done) to formalize these type of
communications with government agencies to lobby for open formats.
Folks,
One option might be to involve the OSGeo geodata committee, with the
intention of possible having OSGeo submit an official request/suggestion
to such agencies.
I do think the agencies reasoning is not *too* off. They provide shapefiles
which are widely accessable but also .mdb files due to the lossiness of
shapefiles. A good solution would be to provide the data in GML format
which can avoid the lossiness of shapefiles and they seem to be moving
in that direction. We just need to provide gentle encouragement. The
telling point is that the .mdb files are essentially inaccessable outside
an ArcGIS environment.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:54 -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Dylan Beaudette wrote:
> Thanks for posting this transaction Nikos. I look forward to further
> communications from the EEA.
>
> As Hamish mentioned a couple messages up in this thread, it would be a
> good idea (if it hasn't already been done) to formalize these type of
> communications with government agencies to lobby for open formats.
Folks,
One option might be to involve the OSGeo geodata committee, with the
intention of possible having OSGeo submit an official request/suggestion
to such agencies.
I do think the agencies reasoning is not *too* off. They provide shapefiles
which are widely accessable but also .mdb files due to the lossiness of
shapefiles. A good solution would be to provide the data in GML format
which can avoid the lossiness of shapefiles and they seem to be moving
in that direction. We just need to provide gentle encouragement. The
telling point is that the .mdb files are essentially inaccessable outside
an ArcGIS environment.
Best regards,
I am learning ...and I like it!
Thank you all,
Nikos
P.S. I suppose no "rough summary" of all this issues exists. Or does
it?
I do think the agencies reasoning is not *too* off. They provide shapefiles
which are widely accessable but also .mdb files due to the lossiness of
shapefiles. A good solution would be to provide the data in GML format
which can avoid the lossiness of shapefiles and they seem to be moving
in that direction. We just need to provide gentle encouragement. The
telling point is that the .mdb files are essentially inaccessable outside
an ArcGIS environment.
Plus it seems that ESRI is moving away from .mdb files for reasons of
performance and the ridiculous file size limit of 2GB. The next
version of ArcGIS should already have an entirely proprietary
spatial database format, so MS Access-based storage will go down the
Avenue way ...
I believe this sort of unsteadiness is also a major concern with
proprietary solutions.
Benjamin
Best regards,
I am learning ...and I like it!
Thank you all,
Nikos
P.S. I suppose no "rough summary" of all this issues exists. Or does
it?
--
Benjamin Ducke, M.A.
Archäoinformatik
(Archaeoinformation Science)
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
(Inst. of Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology)
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
Johanna-Mestorf-Straße 2-6
D 24098 Kiel
Germany
...and I like it!