This message is to all our LiDAR colleagues,
Please contact Scott Simmons directly to discuss your ideas on this. Details below. Thanks.
Best wishes,
Suchith
________________________________________
From: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Suchith Anand [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:14 AM
To: Scott Simmons; Stefan Keller
Cc: OSGeo Discussions; Even Rouault; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] The LAS format, the ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone” by ESRI
Hi Scott,
Thank you for OGC's openness to discuss ideas for reviewing standardisation of LiDAR and other point cloud data. I have informed our LiDAR colleagues to be in contact with you directly to discuss ideas further . It is also good to know that there will be Standards Openness ad hoc session at the upcoming TC meeting in Barcelona on Monday (0900 - 0955) which might be of interest to some of our members who are planning to attend the TC meetings.
Best wishes,
Suchith
________________________________________
From: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Simmons [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:15 PM
To: Stefan Keller
Cc: OSGeo Discussions; Even Rouault; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] The LAS format, the ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone” by ESRI
(note: resend to make sure this gets on the lists)
Hi Stefan,
I will make a few comments!
GeoPackage: the OGC Compliance Program develops conformance test suites for OGC Standards after the Standards have been officially adopted. This process takes time and requires thorough testing itself. A GeoPackage test suite has not yet been completed, but you can see a list of tests and roadmap for test development here:
http://cite.opengeospatial.org/roadmap
The most complete listing of implementations for GeoPackage is here:
http://www.geopackage.org/#implementations
With another registry here:
http://www.opengeospatial.org/resource/products/byspec
Yes, I know that the two registries have some differences - something we are working on in OGC to synchronize!
With respect to support of an OGC Standard by any organization, the OGC membership provides the Standards as free and open and thus, they can be implemented by anyone; we don’t rate nor comment on the degree to which an organization implements the Standard unless the implementation is submitted for formal Certification by OGC.
LiDAR: the OGC is certainly open to reviewing standardization of LiDAR and other point cloud data. This thread has expressed interest for further discussion and I have been approached my other OGC members on the topic. For anyone attending the upcoming OGC TC meeting in Barcelona - find me and we can talk LiDAR. I will be happy to organize a telecon or face-to-face discussion at a future TC meeting to plan a way forward on this topic. I also recommend that interested people bring up the subject on the OGC 3D Information Management Domain Working Group (3DIM DWG) mailing list:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Best Regards,
Scott
Scott Simmons
Executive Director, Standards Program
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
tel +1 970 682 1922
mob +1 970 214 9467
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
The OGC: Making Location Count…
www.opengeospatial.org<http://www.opengeospatial.org>
On Mar 3, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Stefan Keller <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi,
2015-03-03 7:13 GMT+01:00 Even Rouault <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Cameron,
...
Currently there's no finalized conformance test suite available for GeoPackage
to test implementations, so there's no official reference implementation or
conformant implementations.
I'd wish Scott or somebody from OGC could comment on this (and this
thread in general).
* It is probably not appropriate for OSGeo as an organisation to
directly point out ESRI's lack of support for GeoPackage write capability.
I agree. The best marketing, if needed, would be to point at our
implementations that do support write capability.
Be aware that it's not only read/write support one should report and
request in order to make a standard format an alternative to
Shapefiles.
For ArcGIS it's also edit capabilities (for whatever reason...).
Yours, S.
2015-03-03 7:13 GMT+01:00 Even Rouault <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
Hi Cameron,
It is difficult for OSGeo to stop a vendor from promoting their product,
or promoting a specific lock in strategy.
Of course. That was exactly my point.
But we can:
* Support the OGC in developing an OGC standard for LiDAR. Once a
standard is in place, there is a much stronger reason to make use of
that Open Standard. In particular, many national government agencies
have policies which promote standards over proprietary interfaces.
With my mostly uninformed eyes in that topic, I don't know if OGC is the most
relevant organization in that matter. It seems that the ASPRS would be a more
natural host as it has already published the spec of the (uncompressed) LAS
format:
http://www.asprs.org/Committee-General/LASer-LAS-File-Format-Exchange-
Activities.html
I'm not sure about the LASzip format however, the compressed one, which is the
one that ESRI has "cloned" into zLAS. I skimmed through http://www.laszip.org/
and couldn't find a reference to something more formal than LGPL code that
implements it ;-)
* Provide a position statement (as has been suggested) which explains
technically the pros and cons of both the proprietary and open LiDAR
interface.
There are at least a few persons in the OSGeo community that have direct
interest in LiDAR and are likely reading this thread. Perhaps some discussions
are already happening behind the scene ?
Regarding OGC GeoPackage standard:
* I would hope that OGC's list of standards supported has a tick for
read only, and tick for read/write support, so consumers can tell the
difference.
Currently there's no finalized conformance test suite available for GeoPackage
to test implementations, so there's no official reference implementation or
conformant implementations. I guess the conformance test suite would be
similar to the KML one, in that you submit a file, and it is validated. So it
"proves" that you can write a conformant file. Funnily, read-only
implementations could not get the stamp!
* It is probably not appropriate for OSGeo as an organisation to
directly point out ESRI's lack of support for GeoPackage write capability.
I agree. The best marketing, if needed, would be to point at our
implementations that do support write capability.
* However, it is totally appropriate for individuals and news agencies
to write about it.
On 2/03/2015 9:37 pm, Even Rouault wrote:
Stefan,
That a proprietary vendor decides not to implement a standard in its
products is mainly its problem (as well as the one of its customers).
Especially as they are plenty of FOSS alternatives that implement the
standard! So I'd say it is a selling point for FOSS.
The annoying thing here is that a proprietary vendor aggressively pushes
his *closed* format and tries to undermine an open format implemented by
FOSS. So it really harms the FOSS community. In that matter, the
Geoservices REST API episode would have been less critical as the
protocol had been at least opened...
Even
Dear all, dear OSGeo Board
While supporting this LAS related initiative I'd like to draw your
attention to a potentially similar use case which is at least of same
relevance:
In April 2014 Esri officially announced support for >> GeoPackage <<
vector in version 10.2.2 and raster in 10.3:
http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2014/04/14/support-for-ogc-geopackages
-in -arcgis/ ("Support for OGC GeoPackage in ArcGIS")
Now Esri support confirmed that in ArcgIS Desktop 10.3 only read-only
access is possible. So, there's still no write nor edit capability
(and no ArcGIS Server no Runtime) despite this FAQ:
http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/techarticles/detail/42567
("What versions of the OGC GeoPackage standard are supported?")
I'm still looking for an answer for an "Enhancement Request" but I'm
really concerned about Esri's commitment to (promised OGC) standards.
Yours, S.
2015-03-01 22:38 GMT+01:00 Suchith Anand
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
Colleagues,
I see these kind of developments also directly affecting Open
Principles in Geo Education that "Geo for All" , OSGeo, ICA all stand
for and are working together in our common mission of making
geospatial education and opportunities accessible to all.
"Geo for All" will take a stand on this as it not only affects our
Academic colleagues and students working in LIDAR research and teaching
but will have long term impacts on Open Principles in Geo Education. We
will work to put our ideas in the Open Letter from OSGeo explaining
this.
"Geo for All" started from very humble beginnings and this was only
possible because academic colleagues globally came together to change
the status of Geo education. For decades even though there was great
progress in GIS technologies, educational opportunities esp. in
developing and poor countries were very small. This is now changing
dramatically thanks to the efforts of our colleagues from Nepal to
Uruguay.
We got excellent support from all sectors (universities, industry ,
governments etc) but to my surprise ESRI was the only proprietary
vendor who was trying to undermine this initiative indirectly from
the very start. I still cannot understand why this particular vendor
wants to do that. I really hope the proprietors of this company will
also support Open Principles in Geo Education (not just telling
externally on Openness but actually practicing this). We want to have
good relations with everyone in the Geospatial domain , so our hand of
friendship is always open. So please let us all work together.
Hardware costs are (and will) keep coming down, internet access is
increasing (and will keep increasing) even in developing countries
and with free and open source software, even poor schools in
developing countries are getting small computer labs established ( i
know this from my experience in India) .The convergence of all these
factors with a great team of dedicated people is changing geoeducation
forever.
I strongly believe access of good quality education is everyones
birthright and now we are for first time in history getting opportunity
to make this possible. We will not accept putting artificial barriers
like high cost proprietary software (which quite frankly they won't be
able to even think of affording) which will continue denying quality
education opportunities for millions of students globally (both in
developed and developing countries).
So why should i care? Because i learned one of the most important
lessons in my life in my childhood from my grandmother (who though did
not get the opportunity of "proper education" herself taught me the
importance of the values of sharing and about "Vasudeva Kudumbam"
which means "We all belong to one large Universal family" and " Geo
for All" is for my Universal family and i will do everything in my
abilities to make sure education opportunities are open to all.
Best wishes,
Suchith
________________________________________
From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 7:37 PM
To: Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX); Paul Ramsey; Carl Reed
Cc: P Kishor; Scott Simmons; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] The LAS format,
the ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone” by ESRI
What would strengthen a position for use of Open LIDAR interfaces would
be if such an Open LIDAR interface were introduced into the OGC
standards program.
Carl,
I'd be interested to hear you (or someone else from the OGC) explain
how people should approach initiating an Open LIDAR standard, and how
much effort / cost would be required to do so.
The OSGeo community can then assess whether there is sufficient
motivation to initiate such development of a standard.
Patrick,
For an Open Letter from OSGeo, it would be a very powerful statement if
we can list a number of influential organisations who will commit to
developing an open, interoperable standard. (This can be a section of
the open letter with signatures).
On 2/03/2015 4:57 am, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) wrote:
Paul,
I would care to refine the 'yawn' context of 'doing the right thing,'
that of standing up to actions that directly contravene an
organization's 'open exchange' mission. This would seem the kind of
*engaged integrity* quite apart from one deserving a yawn. If your
kids do something directly contrary to what the family needs for a
healthy exchange of information, if a yawn is the response, there are
even more serious issues at stake. -Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 9:32 AM
To: Carl Reed
Cc: Cameron Shorter; P Kishor; Suchith Anand; Scott Simmons; OSGeo
Discussions; Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX); OSGeo-Board;
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss]
[Ica-osgeo-labs] The LAS format, the ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone” by
ESRI
Carl,
No, it doesn't really clarify it. I think what people are wondering is
"does OGC have a default mission and position that closed formats are
bad for the industry and would it publicly admonish a member who took
actions that ran counter to that position". I assume that, as a
"member driven organization" whose membership includes the offender,
the OGC will not be standing up and publicly saying "this company is
contravening the spirit of our organization and mission, that it is
supposedly supportive of".
Am I incorrect?
WRT to OSGeo, I think that black letter cases like this come along
infrequently enough that it would not be at all inappropriate for
OSGeo to publicly state what is wrong with the direction being taken
in the world of LAS formats. The only trouble is, it's exactly what
everyone expects we would do, and therefore will be greeted with a
collective yawn. But it is the right thing, so we should still do it.
ATB,
P.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Carl Reed <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
wrote:
All -
The OGC is not currently involved in activities related to defining
or maintaining LIDAR specific modeling and related encoding
standards. Any work the OGC has been doing WRT LIDAR is within the
context of processing, visualization, and analytics. Obviously,
existing OGC standards such as WCS and GMLJP2 can be used to encode
and share small, processed LIDAR data sets. Feel free to check OGC
email archives, project pages, and so forth for documentation on any
ongoing discussions in the OGC related to LIDAR.
http://www.opengeospatial.org/pub/www/ows9/innovations.html : The
thread participants looked at NITF, LIDAR, and DAP/OPeNDAP, and
investigated their re-implementation in an OWS environment with a
focus on the Web.
or
http://koenigstuhl.geog.uni-heidelberg.de/publications/bonn/conferenc
e /LanigGeoinformatik09.pdf
for examples.
Hope this clarifies the current OGC position.
Regards
Carl
-----Original Message----- From: Suchith Anand
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 4:20 AM
To: Cameron Shorter ; P Kishor ; Suchith Anand
Cc: [log in to unmask] ; Hogan, Patrick(ARC-PX) ;
[log in to unmask] ; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Board] [OSGeo-Discuss] [Ica-osgeo-labs] The LAS format,
the ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone” by ESRI
Hi Cameron,
Thank you for this excellent suggestion. I remember this previous
Geoservices REST API issues and discussions.
Patrick - Could you please start a wiki page and input as much
information as you know on this (ideally in the same structure as the
Geoservices REST API wiki ). Once it is ready, please email the
community and OSGeo Board and we all can look into this.
Anyone from OGC willing to help with this?
I think this should be open letter from the OSGeo Board to the whole
Geo community. I really hope this proprietary vendor (ESRI) will be
decent enough to not keep repeating these inappropriate actions in
the future.
Best wishes,
Suchith
________________________________________
From: Cameron Shorter [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 10:47 AM
To: P Kishor; Suchith Anand
Cc: [log in to unmask]; Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX);
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Ica-osgeo-labs] The LAS format, the
ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone” by ESRI
Patrick, others,
OSGeo and related OGC communities have been successful previously in
stopping ESRI's inappropriate creation of OGC standards. See here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Geoservices_REST_API
I'd suggest that if we as OSGeo wish to be effective at blocking a
vendor lock-in tactic, as seems to be the case, then we should
consider developing a similar wiki page for the LAS format debate.
0. Write an open letter (who to? OGC?) 1. Describe the issue. (Is
there someone who knows the issues well enough to describe them?) 2.
Describe technically why one format is or is not better than the
other, on both a technical and commercial point of view.
3. Is the Open LIDAR format an OGC standard?
4. If needed, collect signatures.
5. If needed, ask OSGeo Board to present the open letter
On 28/02/2015 11:18 am, P Kishor wrote:
Thanks Patrick for surfacing this. Yes, this should be opened up for
scrutiny by the entire community and we should all weigh in.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Suchith Anand
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I believe the OSGeo Board
need to look into this and prepare a position paper with inputs from
the community as this has wider implications. This also need to be
discussed with like minded organisations. We all can provide the
needed support for this.
Jeff and OSGeo Board - please add this to the next month Board
meeting's agenda items. Thanks.
Best wishes,
Suchith
________________________________________
From:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:ica-osgeo-labs-bounces@
l ists.osgeo.org>
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:ica-osgeo-labs-bounces
@ lists.osgeo.org>] On Behalf Of Lene Fischer
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:29 PM
To: Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX);
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] The LAS format, the ASPRS, and the “LAZ
clone” by ESRI
+1
Lene Fischer
Associate Professor
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management University
of Copenhagen
MOB +45 40115084<tel:%2B45%2040115084>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:lfi@i
g n.ku.dk>>
[cid:image001.gif@01D052C3.B23B1060]
Fra:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:ica-osgeo-labs-bounces@
l ists.osgeo.org>
[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ica-osgeo-labs-
b [log in to unmask]>]
På vegne af Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX)
Sendt: 27. februar 2015 18:48
Til:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Emne: [Ica-osgeo-labs] The LAS format, the ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone”
by ESRI
Dear OSGEO,
For what our good name is worth. . .
Do we have an opinion on something so essential as an open standard
for a data format?
Speak now, or forever hand over your wallet. Individual and
collective response encouraged.
Can OSGEO provide a short position paper commenting on our values?
I.e., “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [data] are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these [is Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Openness].”
The LAS format, the ASPRS, and the “LAZ clone” by ESRI
http://rapidlasso.com/2015/02/22/lidar-las-asprs-esri-and-the-laz-clo
n e/
[First paragraph]
We are concerned about ESRI’s next moves in forcing yet another
proprietary format into wide-spread deployment. Forwarded emails,
retold conversations, and personal experiences suggest that sneaky
tactics<http://rapidlasso.com/2014/11/06/keeping-esri-honest/> are
being used to disrupt the harmony in open LiDAR formats that we have
enjoyed for many years.
[cid:image002.jpg@01D052C3.B23B1060]
Thanks much,
-Patrick
Project Manager
NASA World Wind
--
Puneet Kishor
Manager, Science and Data Policy
Creative Commons
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com<http://www.lisasoft.com>, F
+61 2
9009 5099
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete
it.
Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com<http://www.lisasoft.com>, F +61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.
_______________________________________________
ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.
|
