[Geowanking] update - open letter to google

Thu Aug 11 08:57:33 PDT 2005

I'm not sure that without the content and high-powered provisioning,  
the Google Maps API would be of nearly the interest that it seems to  
be. Javascript and tiles are not exactly new.

My point is not whether a WMS interface is equivalent to piracy / non- 
attribution / non-revenue, which is not true and rather outrageous,  
but whether Google Maps remains a proprietary system with no  
interoperability to the rest of the geospatial world (yes it still  
exists) except for what people can hack into KML.

The reference to GO-1 was simply to indicate that one could  
interchange and standardize UI components as well as faceless XML and  
JPG. There are many current efforts to do this (JSF, WSRP) but OGC  
hasn't really come to grips with this yet.

To Schuyler's point, though, it may be that impediment is not so much  
the data licensing arrangements as a business model of driving as  
much Web discovery as possible, whether textual or visual, through  
their "site" where they can watch and influence what people look at  
and what sites they go on to.

josh

On Aug 11, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Sonny Parafina wrote:

> Sorry Josh,  but I have to say that a WMS wrapper around Google  
> Maps is completely retarded and backassward.  What is the purpose  
> of proxying/pirating licensed data?  WMS/WFS to Google Maps makes  
> much more sense.
>
> The real genius behind google maps is the API, this is the reason  
> why google maps has succeed in 45 days while OGC has been at web  
> mapping standards since 1998 and generally draws a, "Huh?"  My  
> reading of the GO debacle was that it was a non-starter.
> I honestly don't see a reason why Google would want to play with  
> OGC, especially in light of rumors of threatened legal action over  
> KML/GML copyright infringment.
>
> sonny
>
> Josh at oklieb wrote:
>
>
>> In this vein, it might be more effective to show rather than tell  
>> -  if people at Google see adoption of a WMS wrapper around Google  
>> maps,  and interest in working on user interface objects as  
>> standards  (somewhat like GO geoapplication objects), they might  
>> be drawn to  join in, or at least react. If they see instead that  
>> people are  willing to restrict themselves to whatever tools  
>> Google gives them in  order to get at that gorgeous content, they  
>> won't have much incentive  to pay attention to anything else.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Greg Elin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Tim O'Reilly, in his presentations regarding open source and   
>>> changing paradigm, often points out that the world is not binary   
>>> between proprietary and open. There is a dance.
>>>
>>> It makes sense to accept that Google, like any interested party,   
>>> has its own agenda -- or better put, own mixed agendas -- that   
>>> impact how it plays with others. But just b/c Google is a big   
>>> company now, we shouldn't forget that a company like Google,  
>>> more  so than Microsoft, is *very* dependent upon the  
>>> participation by  the larger community. This is another point Tim  
>>> likes to point out  -- infoware applications are incredibly  
>>> dependent upon end-user  participation and contribution.
>>>
>>> There's always a tension between pushing a standard (or   
>>> functionality) by getting everyone on the same page and just  
>>> doing  it and shipping good enough product that works.
>>>
>>> Talk to Google (again and again and again). And talk to others   
>>> (again and again and again). And ship great code/apps (again and   
>>> again and again)...
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2005, at 7:22 PM, Schuyler Erle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> * On 10-Aug-2005 at  4:05PM PDT, Jody Garnett said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> After you have put the story on your blog, could you please tell
>>>>>> http://slashdot.org .  This is just the sort of story that  
>>>>>> slashdot
>>>>>> will publish and it has a huge following in the tech community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't expect you will get a response from Google unless you   
>>>>>> publish
>>>>>> the letter to a large public forum (like slashdot).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ug, just the kind of bad press that google etc don't want. Try   
>>>>> and talk
>>>>> to them first, I have it went reasonably well. Why start the
>>>>> conversation off on bad footing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I definitely don't want to go on record as a nay-sayer, but I  
>>>> have a
>>>> feeling that we're wasting our time with this. Having visited  
>>>> Google
>>>> and met the people involved with their maps program, it doesn't  
>>>> seem
>>>> to me that they really have the budget or resources to offer the
>>>> things that the community would appreciate, as you point out. I can
>>>> attempt to make introductions myself, but I think that so broad a
>>>> platform of requests and desires would simply overwhelm them,  
>>>> and I'm
>>>> not sure that anything would come of it.
>>>>
>>>> The problem, of course, is that Google is a for-profit business,
>>>> ostensibly one with shareholder accountability. Unless we can  
>>>> make a
>>>> case for how they can justify our requests to their  
>>>> shareholders, we
>>>> can't really expect them to bite. Even though what they've done for
>>>> mapping on the web is pretty incredible, Google is still  
>>>> hamstrung by
>>>> obligations to their data providers. (Insert something her about  
>>>> "...
>>>> once you have paid him the Dane-geld / You never get rid of the
>>>> Dane.")
>>>>
>>>> I think we have to face the fact that the community must provide  
>>>> for
>>>> itself, and that no publically held company is going to go out on a
>>>> limb for us. To put it quite bluntly, Google doesn't owe us  
>>>> anything.
>>>> If we want Google's (or any other corporation's) help in  
>>>> building the
>>>> geospatial web that we all know is possible, then we're going to  
>>>> have
>>>> to come up with very tightly targeted proposals that will stand  
>>>> up to
>>>> the scrutiny of corporate due diligence.
>>>>
>>>> SDE
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Geowanking mailing list
>>>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
>>>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geowanking mailing list
>>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
>>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geowanking mailing list
>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>