Comments on: GeoData Format wars: GML vs KML vs ?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:24:09 +0000

Actually, we’ ve been working with the GML Simple Features profile for almost two years now and have found that it’s a pretty good replacement for many existing geodata formats.

But we work with all the formats listed above, so I don’t have to choose

Regards,
Jeff

http://www.carbontools.com

By: mookie

mookie — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:30:51 +0000

ok whatever here’s the site: http://ogr.maptools.org/

By: mookie

mookie — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:30:07 +0000

It ate my xml so…

… schema specific xml that includes a gml fragment …
( — for ogr:

… gml fragment …
attribute_value

)

]]>

By: mookie

mookie — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:28:37 +0000

Ok so I haven’t read all 600 or so pages of the GML specification but…

I think that the issue we’re dealing with stems from the fact that GML doesn’t actually compete with shapefiles, or KML. GML describes the geometries themselves while KML describes how to display them. Shapefiles describe, geometries and their attributes.

We really need a standard XML replacement for shapefiles, and that isn’t what GML is. GML provides a standard way of including geographic data in your own schemas, nothing more. Therefore the comment “we support GML” is pretty much meaningless.

ogr and topp brands of gml look something like this:

… schema specific xml that includes a gml fragment …
( — for ogr:

… gml fragment …
attribute_value

)

this is also the same response you get from a wfs getFeature request.

since it already exists and provides free and open software, id say embrace the ogr spec, and try and pressure ogc to include it as a standard way of transporting GIS data.

~mookie
(btw I am an F1er as well, I dont actually enjoy reading OGC specs in my spare time)