MapFish Incubation application - reactivation

[Claude Philipona]

Hi All,

I'd like to point to the ticket 293 (MapFish Incubation application
http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/293), more than a year old, for
which the incubation committee hasn't given any answer yet.

The experiences and discussions at the FOSS4G conference clearly shows
the large interest and the need for such a framework in the FOSS4G
ecosystem. Since last year, the number of users, organizations,
companies implementing or contributing to MapFish has continuously
increased. MapFish fills some holes as a high end webmapping
framework, now that some projects using previous generation technology
are stalling or slowly dying. A PSC is being set-up with a large
representation from different organizations, countries, background.

All the criteria for Incubation are fully met and it is now really a
good time, as I've discussed with several members of the incubation
committee, to start incubation as the MapFish just went through one
lifecycle and is just starting the next one with important strategic
decision.

We will discuss the project organization during the BoF 2 hours from
now and I hope we can take the chance to discuss afterwards with
members of the Incubation Committee to quickly go on the further steps
leading to incubation start.

Thanks,

Claude
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Jody Garnett-2]

Hi Claude; we are a bit short on man power; once the deegree vote  
happens I hope to be available.

The committee is supportive of new volunteers; we really just need a  
point of contact with each community; and we try not to spread  
ourselves too thin. OSGeo now has a stable of projects that have been  
through incubation (and thus have experience that would be valuable to  
you in incubation). Do you have contacts with any of these projects?  
You could encourage them to volunteer and mentor you.

Cheers,
Jody

On 22/10/2009, at 3:21 PM, Claude Philipona wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to point to the ticket 293 (MapFish Incubation application
> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/293), more than a year old, for
> which the incubation committee hasn't given any answer yet.
>
> The experiences and discussions at the FOSS4G conference clearly shows
> the large interest and the need for such a framework in the FOSS4G
> ecosystem. Since last year, the number of users, organizations,
> companies implementing or contributing to MapFish has continuously
> increased. MapFish fills some holes as a high end webmapping
> framework, now that some projects using previous generation technology
> are stalling or slowly dying. A PSC is being set-up with a large
> representation from different organizations, countries, background.
>
> All the criteria for Incubation are fully met and it is now really a
> good time, as I've discussed with several members of the incubation
> committee, to start incubation as the MapFish just went through one
> lifecycle and is just starting the next one with important strategic
> decision.
>
> We will discuss the project organization during the BoF 2 hours from
> now and I hope we can take the chance to discuss afterwards with
> members of the Incubation Committee to quickly go on the further steps
> leading to incubation start.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Claude
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Gary Sherman-3]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gary Sherman <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Incubator] MapFish Incubation application - reactivation
To: Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Cc: Claude Philipona <[hidden email]>, Mapfish Users
<[hidden email]>, Mapfish Dev <[hidden email]>,
[hidden email], [hidden email]


On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Claude; we are a bit short on man power; once the deegree vote happens I
> hope to be available.
>
> The committee is supportive of new volunteers; we really just need a point
> of contact with each community; and we try not to spread ourselves too thin.
> OSGeo now has a stable of projects that have been through incubation (and
> thus have experience that would be valuable to you in incubation). Do you
> have contacts with any of these projects? You could encourage them to
> volunteer and mentor you.

I am available to mentor MapFish.

-gary

--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Gary Sherman
Chair, QGIS Project Steering Committee
-Desktop GIS Book:
 *http://desktopgisbook.com
-Spatial Hosting:
 *http://mrcc.com/hosting
"We work virtually everywhere"
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-



--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Gary Sherman
Chair, QGIS Project Steering Committee
-Desktop GIS Book:
 *http://desktopgisbook.com
-Spatial Hosting:
 *http://mrcc.com/hosting
"We work virtually everywhere"
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Cédric Moullet]

Thanks Gary for your proposition.
I imagine that the incubation committee can now evaluate MapFish incubation request and provide a recommendation for the MapFish incubation to the OSGeo board which will meet on november 5th. Is it the correct ?
Let us now if there is still pending points,
Best regards,
Cédric

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Gary Sherman <[hidden email]> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gary Sherman <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Incubator] MapFish Incubation application - reactivation
To: Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>
Cc: Claude Philipona <[hidden email]>, Mapfish Users
<[hidden email]>, Mapfish Dev <[hidden email]>,
[hidden email], [hidden email]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Claude; we are a bit short on man power; once the deegree vote happens I
> hope to be available.
>
> The committee is supportive of new volunteers; we really just need a point
> of contact with each community; and we try not to spread ourselves too thin.
> OSGeo now has a stable of projects that have been through incubation (and
> thus have experience that would be valuable to you in incubation). Do you
> have contacts with any of these projects? You could encourage them to
> volunteer and mentor you.

I am available to mentor MapFish.

-gary

--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Gary Sherman
Chair, QGIS Project Steering Committee
-Desktop GIS Book:
 *http://desktopgisbook.com
-Spatial Hosting:
 *http://mrcc.com/hosting
"We work virtually everywhere"
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-



--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Gary Sherman
Chair, QGIS Project Steering Committee
-Desktop GIS Book:
 *http://desktopgisbook.com
-Spatial Hosting:
 *http://mrcc.com/hosting
"We work virtually everywhere"
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

--
CTO Geospatial Camptocamp SA
Cédric Moullet
PSE A
CH-1015 Lausanne
www.camptocamp.com  / www.mapfish.org / twitter.com/cedricmoullet / mapfishblog.blogspot.com/

[phone] (mobile)
[phone] (direct)
[phone] (centrale)
[phone] (fax)

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Cameron Shorter-2]

At FOSS4G, I was introduced to GeoMajas http://www.geomajas.org/
This project provides similar functionality to MapFish, and before
moving into MapFish into incubation, I'd be interested to hear a
discussion about the similarities and differences between the two
projects. In particular, I'd be interested to hear whether there are
opportunities to share libraries between projects. (We gain more by
focusing our developers on one project rather than splitting between many).

Claude Philipona wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to point to the ticket 293 (MapFish Incubation application
> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/293), more than a year old, for
> which the incubation committee hasn't given any answer yet.
>
> The experiences and discussions at the FOSS4G conference clearly shows
> the large interest and the need for such a framework in the FOSS4G
> ecosystem. Since last year, the number of users, organizations,
> companies implementing or contributing to MapFish has continuously
> increased. MapFish fills some holes as a high end webmapping
> framework, now that some projects using previous generation technology
> are stalling or slowly dying. A PSC is being set-up with a large
> representation from different organizations, countries, background.
>
> All the criteria for Incubation are fully met and it is now really a
> good time, as I've discussed with several members of the incubation
> committee, to start incubation as the MapFish just went through one
> lifecycle and is just starting the next one with important strategic
> decision.
>
> We will discuss the project organization during the BoF 2 hours from
> now and I hope we can take the chance to discuss afterwards with
> members of the Incubation Committee to quickly go on the further steps
> leading to incubation start.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Claude
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>  

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: [phone]
Mob: [phone]

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Cédric Moullet]

Hi Cameron,
Thanks for this question. I am not a geomajas specialist, but i ll try to give some answers.
The main similarity is probably that mapfish and geomajas share the same goal: providing a way to create web mapping applications.
But behind the scene, there is a lot of differences. Probably like the differences between mapserver and geoserver.
So let s have a look at the server side. For mapfish, we are in the python world. Mapfish server can be seen as the geospatial extension of the pylons web development framework. Existing components are used like shapely,geojson, sqlalchemy in order to offer geospatial REST services for querying, inserting, updating and deleting spatial data. One important point is that mapfish is not a cartographic server. Mapserver, geoserver or mapguide ,... are used for the rendering.
Geomajas server is a java development which probably uses libraries like jts. As far as i know, the rendering part is a custom development and doesnt use geoerver.
On the client side, mapfish is using javascript libraries like openlayers, extjs and geoext. These libraries will allow the developer to create user interfaces communicating with servers.
Geomajas client ui are built through the gwt approach. As far as i know, dojo is used. For the maps, a custom developement has been made and openlayers is not used.
In general, with mapfish, we don t want to reinvent the wheel. That is why we use existing components (pylons,shapely,sqlalchemy,geojson,openlayers,extjs, geoext). Our goal is to make that all these components work well together and to add only the missing functions. For example, it takes 1 minute to install mapfish client and server. After this installation the developer can start building an application and uses the power of all the mentionned components.
I hope this provides valuable information. You can have a look at the mapfish blog: the presentation i gave last friday can be downloaded.
Best regards,
Cedric
(from my mobile phone)

----- Message d'origine -----
De: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Env: mardi, 27. octobre 2009 15:08
À: Claude Philipona <[hidden email]>
Cc: Dirk Frigne <[hidden email]>; Mapfish Users <[hidden email]>; Mapfish Dev <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Objet: Re: [Incubator] MapFish Incubation application - reactivation

At FOSS4G, I was introduced to GeoMajas http://www.geomajas.org/
This project provides similar functionality to MapFish, and before
moving into MapFish into incubation, I'd be interested to hear a
discussion about the similarities and differences between the two
projects. In particular, I'd be interested to hear whether there are
opportunities to share libraries between projects. (We gain more by
focusing our developers on one project rather than splitting between many).

Claude Philipona wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to point to the ticket 293 (MapFish Incubation application
> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/293), more than a year old, for
> which the incubation committee hasn't given any answer yet.
>
> The experiences and discussions at the FOSS4G conference clearly shows
> the large interest and the need for such a framework in the FOSS4G
> ecosystem. Since last year, the number of users, organizations,
> companies implementing or contributing to MapFish has continuously
> increased. MapFish fills some holes as a high end webmapping
> framework, now that some projects using previous generation technology
> are stalling or slowly dying. A PSC is being set-up with a large
> representation from different organizations, countries, background.
>
> All the criteria for Incubation are fully met and it is now really a
> good time, as I've discussed with several members of the incubation
> committee, to start incubation as the MapFish just went through one
> lifecycle and is just starting the next one with important strategic
> decision.
>
> We will discuss the project organization during the BoF 2 hours from
> now and I hope we can take the chance to discuss afterwards with
> members of the Incubation Committee to quickly go on the further steps
> leading to incubation start.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Claude
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>  

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: [phone]
Mob: [phone]

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Claude Philipona]

Hello,

My last night in Australia, I won't be too wordy.

There are for sure some overlap in terms of the client-side features,
but it is globally quite different.

As far as I know here are some differences:
- MapFish is a pylons-based framework which relies on OSGeo software
such as OpenLayers, GeoExt, ... (MapFish was actually a the root of
GeoExt) and is agnostic from a particular mapping server. GeoMajas
seems to be a fully independent stack not based on OSGeo or components
from communities.

- It's always hard to define what is framework, but from my point of
view, GeoMajas is more a webmapping application builder, than a
development framework giving total freedom to the develop any advanced
web mapping application.

On the MapFish side, of course there are no barrier to share works
that can meet the needs form several parties. MapFish already achieved
such sharing with GeoExt, which emerged from MapFish last year after
the FOSS4G BoF with different persons and organizations such as
OpenGeo. MapFish first development started actually in 2006, after
FOSS4G Lausanne. That was the first try to make a rewrite of CartoWeb
with a more uptodate technology. Since then, it has been a constant
goal to use, share, enhanced Open Source components. That was for
example the case with OpenLayers.

Claude

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 19:08, Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> At FOSS4G, I was introduced to GeoMajas http://www.geomajas.org/
> This project provides similar functionality to MapFish, and before moving
> into MapFish into incubation, I'd be interested to hear a discussion about
> the similarities and differences between the two projects. In particular,
> I'd be interested to hear whether there are opportunities to share libraries
> between projects. (We gain more by focusing our developers on one project
> rather than splitting between many).
>
> Claude Philipona wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'd like to point to the ticket 293 (MapFish Incubation application
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/293), more than a year old, for
>> which the incubation committee hasn't given any answer yet.
>>
>> The experiences and discussions at the FOSS4G conference clearly shows
>> the large interest and the need for such a framework in the FOSS4G
>> ecosystem. Since last year, the number of users, organizations,
>> companies implementing or contributing to MapFish has continuously
>> increased. MapFish fills some holes as a high end webmapping
>> framework, now that some projects using previous generation technology
>> are stalling or slowly dying. A PSC is being set-up with a large
>> representation from different organizations, countries, background.
>>
>> All the criteria for Incubation are fully met and it is now really a
>> good time, as I've discussed with several members of the incubation
>> committee, to start incubation as the MapFish just went through one
>> lifecycle and is just starting the next one with important strategic
>> decision.
>>
>> We will discuss the project organization during the BoF 2 hours from
>> now and I hope we can take the chance to discuss afterwards with
>> members of the Incubation Committee to quickly go on the further steps
>> leading to incubation start.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Claude
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Solutions Manager
> Tel: [phone]
> Mob: [phone]
>
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
>
>

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Bob Basques]

All,


It seems prudent to chime in here about GeoMoose as well, which it primarily a Web Based (UI) framework intended for rapid deployment.  it also uses existing OSGEO components like MapServer, and OpenLayers LIBs, but is also agnostic about such services.  It's windows distrubution is with MS4W and can be installed very quickly as well.  It's also suitable for build out in an offline capacity.  

Hmmm, these are the sort of things I was pondering a lot after making the GeoMoose application for incubation, how to filter projects down into salable (sellable) packages.  The GeoMoose project has server pieces distributed with it. The line between (OSGEO)  services and applications has become  very blurry in my opinion over the last year or so.

It seems to me that these types of discussions should happen after incubation, or at least more near the end of the process.  Or is it a feeling that the sooner the better, or rather once things are set, not much you can do about it, sort of thinking?  

:c)

bobb


>>> Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> 10/27/09 3:08 AM >>>
At FOSS4G, I was introduced to GeoMajas http://www.geomajas.org/
This project provides similar functionality to MapFish, and before
moving into MapFish into incubation, I'd be interested to hear a
discussion about the similarities and differences between the two
projects. In particular, I'd be interested to hear whether there are
opportunities to share libraries between projects. (We gain more by
focusing our developers on one project rather than splitting between many).

Claude Philipona wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to point to the ticket 293 (MapFish Incubation application
> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/293), more than a year old, for
> which the incubation committee hasn't given any answer yet.
>
> The experiences and discussions at the FOSS4G conference clearly shows
> the large interest and the need for such a framework in the FOSS4G
> ecosystem. Since last year, the number of users, organizations,
> companies implementing or contributing to MapFish has continuously
> increased. MapFish fills some holes as a high end webmapping
> framework, now that some projects using previous generation technology
> are stalling or slowly dying. A PSC is being set-up with a large
> representation from different organizations, countries, background.
>
> All the criteria for Incubation are fully met and it is now really a
> good time, as I've discussed with several members of the incubation
> committee, to start incubation as the MapFish just went through one
> lifecycle and is just starting the next one with important strategic
> decision.
>
> We will discuss the project organization during the BoF 2 hours from
> now and I hope we can take the chance to discuss afterwards with
> members of the Incubation Committee to quickly go on the further steps
> leading to incubation start.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Claude
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>  

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: [phone]
Mob: [phone]

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Cameron Shorter-2]

Bob Basques wrote:
> It seems to me that these types of discussions should happen after incubation, or at least more near the end of the process.  Or is it a feeling that the sooner the better, or rather once things are set, not much you can do about it, sort of thinking?  
>  
One of the rules of marketing is "the less you write, the more your
words will be read".
I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing on a few
quality projects rather than a catalog of all projects around. The OSGeo
brand should be helping implementers select the best of the projects around.

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: [phone]
Mob: [phone]

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Bob Basques]

Cameron,

That's kind of the feeling I've had in the back of my mind for a while now.  I wonder though, how that type of sediment would translate when something out in the wild becomes better than a OSGEO, "tamed" project.

:c)

I think the variety of potential uses of the OSS stack mitigate an approach such as this. It's hard to build a so called quality stack without excluding smaller or obscure projects for example, if you add in specific business types of operations then the problem gets magnified even more.

I'm a rabble-rouser sort of individual and in the past would sit back and guage responses, but here I'm going to suggest tat this type of sediment be moderated to a large degree.  The nature of how OSS comes into being is in many respect oppsed to oderly operations, at least initially, and passing ideas (or operations) over cursorily does not seem to be in the best interests of anyone (or group) deciding to put anything out into the "wild"


bobb

>>> Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> 10/27/09 2:19 PM >>>
Bob Basques wrote:
> It seems to me that these types of discussions should happen after incubation, or at least more near the end of the process.  Or is it a feeling that the sooner the better, or rather once things are set, not much you can do about it, sort of thinking?  
>  
One of the rules of marketing is "the less you write, the more your
words will be read".
I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing on a few
quality projects rather than a catalog of all projects around. The OSGeo
brand should be helping implementers select the best of the projects around.

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: [phone]
Mob: [phone]

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Jody Garnett-2]

> GeoExt) and is agnostic from a particular mapping server. GeoMajas
> seems to be a fully independent stack not based on OSGeo or components
> from communities.

GeoMajas is using GeoTools under the hood.

Jody
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Bruce Bannerman-2]

Cameron,

> One of the rules of marketing is "the less you write, the
> more your words will be read".
> I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing
> on a few quality projects rather than a catalog of all
> projects around. The OSGeo brand should be helping
> implementers select the best of the projects around.
>

Agreed.

This was behind the thinking of my earlier post to Discuss on looking at an integrated OSGeo Architecture.

Attached for reference.


Bruce


Hi Bob,

I don't think that it would be appropriate to allocate a mind map branch to each OSGeo project, as:

- it would be better to keep the mind map as an independent high level architectural assessment.

- not all projects listed are OSGeo Projects.



It is possible to link nodes on the mind map with lines (e.g. GeoMoose to Openlayers), but this started to get messy, so I left it out.





That said, I see this mind map as just the beginning of the 'Current State Architecture' of Open Source spatial.

I undertook the work, because I was trying to get the 'big picture' of what was happening.


A potential future direction that we in OSGeo may (or may not) wish to take is to get a more co-ordinated and well integrated suite of OSGeo applications.


Borrowing from the Enterprise Architecture world, a potential way forward is to get together a group of like minded people with the relevant experience and:

- (with broad consultation) Work out a broad strategic direction for the next five years, including:

  + what  are the key OSGeo projects to focus on.

  + what non-OSGeo projects should be encouraged into the fold.

  + what new projects are desirable.

  + define OSGeo policy requirements for applications, e.g.: OGC Services support;
     a standard interface layout so that users can switch between applications
     without undue re-learning; a standard configuration process; common branding; etc.

  + define desirable OSGeo integration functionality for individual OSGeo Project
     Contral Boards to target their development against.

  + define and continue development of core OSGeo supportive projects e.g.
     cartographic and GUI symbol libraries.

  + etc


- Defining a roadmap with indicative timelines to get from our 'current state' to
  our 'future state' (i.e. a more co-ordinated and well integrated suite of OSGeo applications).


Just a thought.


Bruce Bannerman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]

> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bob Basques
> Sent: Thursday, 15 October 2009 3:16 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mind Map - Open Source
> Spatial Projects
>

> A thought here . . . .
>
>
> How would you see something like this working from a Project
> meta-data perspective.  I'm wondering about the possibilty of
> each OSGEO project handling their own branch of the MindMap
> diagram.  Is there a way to link branches together?
>
>
> Another piece that is nagging at me somewhat is how to handle
> things that might need to be cross indexed (if possible),
> GeoMoose might (will??) have items that related to more than
> one other project, it's now utilizing the OpenLayers display
> LIBs for example.  And I know of a couple of other projects
> that may end up as connectors.
>
>
> Just wondering (or muttereing) out loud. . . .

>
>
> bobb
>
>
>
>
> >>> Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >

> > It would be great if you could add in the MapWindow project.
> > MapWindow GIS Desktop Application is a C#/.NET desktop GIS that is
> > completely open source and has about 6000 downloads per month from
> > www.MapWindow.org.
> >
> > Also, under your library/developer tools, we the project
> also includes
> > a set of .NET libraries and a COM C++ ActiveX component
> based on both
> > NTS and GDAL.
> >
> > - Dan
>
>

> done

>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > OpenScales is a user-friendly and fast interface written in
> > ActionScript3/Flex/AIR designed to visualize and manipulate spatial
> > data.
> >
> > OpenScales is open source with an LGPL license.
> >
> >
> >

> > Aurélien Barbier-Accary
>
>
> done
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Jody Garnett-2]

> One of the rules of marketing is "the less you write, the more your words
> will be read".
> I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing on a few quality
> projects rather than a catalog of all projects around. The OSGeo brand
> should be helping implementers select the best of the projects around.

Interesting; the mandate for OSGeo is to support open source
geospatial; not really to a produce a sensible stack of projects
(there are many vendors doing exactly that and we want to encourage
their success).

If the OSGeo brand wants to do some sensible work in this direction we
can start offering feature comparisons and so forth to enable users to
evaluate.

With this in mind I am coming down completely in the opposite
direction; I want to encourage competition and collaboration as two
tools to increase quality across the board.

Jody
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Bruce Bannerman-2]

Jody,

IMO, the two ideals are not mutually exclusive.

It is possible to encourage a quality set of recognised and well integrated OSGeo applications and still allow for diversity of approaches.

There will always be better ways of approaching a problem, and projects will naturally form to explore those concepts. In time these new projects may replace what is currently state of the art. This needs to be allowed for, or OSGeo will stagnate.


I'm thinking longer term, say five years down the track.



Is it time to sit back and think about what we want longer term in an OSGeo Stack, or do we just leave it to natural evolution and hope that we get a coordinated stack in the end?


Bruce

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jody Garnett
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2009 10:57 AM
> To: Cameron Shorter
> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email];
> [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Incubator] MapFish Incubation application - reactivation
>
> > One of the rules of marketing is "the less you write, the more your
> > words will be read".
> > I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing
> on a few
> > quality projects rather than a catalog of all projects around. The
> > OSGeo brand should be helping implementers select the best
> of the projects around.
>
> Interesting; the mandate for OSGeo is to support open source
> geospatial; not really to a produce a sensible stack of
> projects (there are many vendors doing exactly that and we
> want to encourage their success).
>
> If the OSGeo brand wants to do some sensible work in this
> direction we can start offering feature comparisons and so
> forth to enable users to evaluate.
>
> With this in mind I am coming down completely in the opposite
> direction; I want to encourage competition and collaboration
> as two tools to increase quality across the board.
>
> Jody
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> _______________________________________________

Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Martin Desruisseaux]

>> I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing
>> on a few quality projects rather than a catalog of all
>> projects around. The OSGeo brand should be helping
>> implementers select the best of the projects around.

But it could be a difficult debate... For example I can safely said (as the main
author of that code on both projects) that Geotoolkit.org (Geotk) is superior to
GeoTools in the referencing and metadata modules (no judgment on other modules),
but Geotk is not currently an OSGeo project while GeoTools is. If Geotk applies
for incubation but OSGeo prefers to keep it out for focusing on a core set of
projects, it would be difficult to defend that point on technical ground or on
code provenance review ground. The only ground left is community, but this
precisely one of the aspects where an OSGeo label is expected to help projects.

Jody's proposal (allow competition) may be more neutral...

        Martin
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Bruce Bannerman-2]

Martin,
>
> But it could be a difficult debate...

Agreed.

But should we shy from it?


Bruce

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Martin Desruisseaux]

Bruce Bannerman a écrit :
> Martin,
>> But it could be a difficult debate...
>
> Agreed.
>
> But should we shy from it?

Given that it would likely leads to an intermediate position as you suggested in
your previous email, I guess we should not be shy...

        Martin

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Bob Basques]

Hmm, Maybe compitition is too strong, would comparer or evaluator be a better approach for OSGEO, problem though, is how to arrive at a set of base service/application types.  Seems like this might be a list that could vary quite a bit.

bobb

>>> Martin Desruisseaux <[hidden email]> 10/27/09 7:37 PM >>>
>> I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing
>> on a few quality projects rather than a catalog of all
>> projects around. The OSGeo brand should be helping
>> implementers select the best of the projects around.

But it could be a difficult debate... For example I can safely said (as the main
author of that code on both projects) that Geotoolkit.org (Geotk) is superior to
GeoTools in the referencing and metadata modules (no judgment on other modules),
but Geotk is not currently an OSGeo project while GeoTools is. If Geotk applies
for incubation but OSGeo prefers to keep it out for focusing on a core set of
projects, it would be difficult to defend that point on technical ground or on
code provenance review ground. The only ground left is community, but this
precisely one of the aspects where an OSGeo label is expected to help projects.

Jody's proposal (allow competition) may be more neutral...

        Martin
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Frank Warmerdam]

Folks,

My take is that:

1) We have already decided we are not going to pick one "winner" for each
    part of the stack and exclude others.  This was implicit in MapGuide
    and MapServer being founding projects of the foundation.  So we are
    clearly going to be open to multiple projects that fill roughly the
    same role.

2) For our OSGeo marketing message to be effective I think we need to try
    and restrict ourselves to quality, good-value projects.  Pushing a weak
    project to some extent will devalue the others.  I have mostly chosen
    to interprete quality in terms of a healthy supporting community
    and projects that are reasonably mature.

3) In the past we have not tried hard to integrate things into a
    consistent stack, but we have shown some bias towards projects
    that leverage other OSGeo projects (and to encourage this), and
    also we have shown more interest in projects that "fill a gap".

I am interested in things we can do as a community to enable greater
cooperation and coordination between projects to build sharing leverage
and to ensure that things fit together more smoothly.  I think we need
to find supportive helpful ways of doing this rather than trying to
strong arm projects.

Ideas might include OSGeo providing support (eg. financial) for
meetings on topics like sharing icons and symbols or sprints involving
folks from related projects.  I don't see this as particularly a task of
the incubation committee though this is a good crowd to kick around ideas.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

[Claude Philipona]

I mostly agree with the fact that OSGeo projects need to have some
kind of uniformity on how they present themselves from a marketing
point of view, so that non OSGeo specialist can easily enter into the
OSGeo world. This is mandatory, I totally support the different
brainstormings going on right now about those topics, and there are
some really good ideas coming out.

BUT, I don't think going to some extreme of choosing one piece of
software for each group of features is the right way to go. Should
OSGeo choose between MapServer and GeoServer based on the last
shoutout? Oh no! we won't have Jeff and Andrea walking down the aisles
anymore; nobody will show up at the next closing plenary... Should
OSGeo keep just one Desktop GIS, they are doing all pretty much the
same kind of job, or at least it would be quite easy to do so. Which
one to pick? QGis?, Udig? gvSIG?...and so on for about all the current
OSGeo projects from which half or more should be kicked out as less
performing duplicates. Doesn't make much sense.

OSGeo should be able to host projects covering partly the same needs
or features, but maybe with a different angle of approach or a
different technology, as long as they are community projects that are
open to collaboration with other OSGeo project or more extensively
with Open source projects. The rules for incubation are already quite
well defined. Open Source and OSGeo need some emulating diversity for
its evolution. Some projects will appear, some will fade out or even
die, the core low-level lib will probably have longer life cycle....
Software macrocosm is at some point like organic life, things are
happening where you didn't image them to appear.

Oh, I just crossed the Equator, let's put the mail on the queue.

Claude

2009/10/28 Jody Garnett <[hidden email]>:

>> One of the rules of marketing is "the less you write, the more your words
>> will be read".
>> I feel the same about OSGeo projects. We should be focusing on a few quality
>> projects rather than a catalog of all projects around. The OSGeo brand
>> should be helping implementers select the best of the projects around.
>
> Interesting; the mandate for OSGeo is to support open source
> geospatial; not really to a produce a sensible stack of projects
> (there are many vendors doing exactly that and we want to encourage
> their success).
>
> If the OSGeo brand wants to do some sensible work in this direction we
> can start offering feature comparisons and so forth to enable users to
> evaluate.
>
> With this in mind I am coming down completely in the opposite
> direction; I want to encourage competition and collaboration as two
> tools to increase quality across the board.
>
> Jody
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator