Open source front end for environmental data
LATEST NEWS
SUBSCRIBE
Computerworld is New Zealand's only specialised information systems fortnightly. Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
SIGN UP
Research institutes implement open source platform for environmental data sharing between agencies
By Sim Ahmed | Auckland | Tuesday, 15 November, 2011 | 13 Comments
Crown Research Institutes GNS Science, Landcare and National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) are working together with the New Zealand Geospatial Office to open the flow of environmental data between government agencies by harmonizing the systems used for managing it.
Currently, New Zealand environmental information is collected by a wide range of government agencies including regional councils and district councils, SOEs, and research institutes. Each uses varying methods and systems, making the sharing of data and co-operation difficult.
"There is a lot of environmental data sitting in institutional archives across New Zealand which use their own systems. We currently don't have easy access to this information and it isn't being utilized as well as it should be," says Jochen Schmidt, Chief Scientist, Environmental Information, at NIWA.
"Adopting a common information sharing model will unlock a vast amount of environmental data and save New Zealand a significant amount of money currently wasted on information searches."
NIWA claims that the productivity benefits alone could save the government up to $500 million a year, with possible further economic benefits generated from easing access to environmental research.
"Take the marine space for example," says Schmidt. "There is a lot of information out there from GNS, NIWA, and other organisations. If all this information was available through a single portal or workflow, you could more easily make decisions about where to target mineral exploration on the sea floor."
The partnership will use an open source information sharing system called Spatial Information Services Stack (SISS), which was developed in Australia. SISS systems can be built on top of any local database, allowing the sharing of information across disparate systems, and because it is a freeware solution the initial setup costs are relatively low.
Schmidt says that he hopes to emulate a similar SISS system successfully deployed in Australia by earth science company AuScope, which is delivering environmental information between mining companies and government agencies.
Both GNS and Landcare have already set up partial SISS systems, with other agencies expected to begin work in the next three to six months.
"This is the first step towards a new era of information sharing in New Zealand."
On 22 November NIWA, along with specialists from Australia, will be hosting a workshop for system architects, information practitioners, and web service creators from a range of New Zealand agencies to learn more about SISS.
Comments
A good story on open source is...
Again, side tracked... This time it is by the definition of "free". Who gives a shit! You see, this is why people don't get Open Source advocates. Everyone gets all pedantic and it ends up resembling a group of autistic people looking at a ceiling fan arguing about which way it is spinning.
Posted by Mr X at 15:19:07 on November 17, 2011
Posted by Mr X at 15:19:07 on November 17, 2011
A good story on open source is...
Too awesome... is it wrong of me to bait them so they START arguing like that?? So often the result is just comedy gold!
Posted by Mark L at 16:42:01 on November 17, 2011
Posted by Mark L at 16:42:01 on November 17, 2011
A good story on open source is...
while dressed in short sleve shirts, shorts and knee high socks
Posted by Anonymous at 16:22:40 on November 17, 2011
Posted by Anonymous at 16:22:40 on November 17, 2011
A good story on open source is...
Damn, you got me in one. I'll roll my sleves down next time. Heh heh.
Posted by Dave Lane at 10:31:41 on November 18, 2011
Posted by Dave Lane at 10:31:41 on November 18, 2011
FOSS
Freeware != Open-Source
Software however can be both free and open source and as everybody likes to quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software
In the context of free and open-source software, free refers to the freedom to copy and re-use the software, rather than to the price of the software. The Free Software Foundation, an organization that advocates the free software model, suggests that, to understand the concept, one should "think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer".
There are many Open Source licenses and software that is open-source but not free (Red Hat Enterprise Linux springs to mind)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux
Unusually, Red Hat took steps to obfuscate their changes to the Linux kernel for 6.0 by not publicly providing the patch files for their changes in the source tarball, and only releasing the finished product in source form. Speculation suggested that the move was made in order to affect Oracle's competing rebuild and support services, which further modifies the distribution. This practice however, still complies with the GNU GPL since source code is defined as "[the] preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", and the distribution still complies with this definition.[13] Red Hat's CTO Brian Stevens later confirmed the change, stating that certain information (such as patch information) would now only be provided to paying customers in order to make the Red Hat product more competitive against the growing number of companies offering support for products based on RHEL
Posted by Anonymous at 16:51:23 on November 16, 2011
Software however can be both free and open source and as everybody likes to quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software
In the context of free and open-source software, free refers to the freedom to copy and re-use the software, rather than to the price of the software. The Free Software Foundation, an organization that advocates the free software model, suggests that, to understand the concept, one should "think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer".
There are many Open Source licenses and software that is open-source but not free (Red Hat Enterprise Linux springs to mind)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux
Unusually, Red Hat took steps to obfuscate their changes to the Linux kernel for 6.0 by not publicly providing the patch files for their changes in the source tarball, and only releasing the finished product in source form. Speculation suggested that the move was made in order to affect Oracle's competing rebuild and support services, which further modifies the distribution. This practice however, still complies with the GNU GPL since source code is defined as "[the] preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", and the distribution still complies with this definition.[13] Red Hat's CTO Brian Stevens later confirmed the change, stating that certain information (such as patch information) would now only be provided to paying customers in order to make the Red Hat product more competitive against the growing number of companies offering support for products based on RHEL
Posted by Anonymous at 16:51:23 on November 16, 2011
Ok
The article *is* about the fact that this software is Open Source - it's in the title. It seems like it would be appropriate under the circumstances to use precise language about that aspect of it, particularly. Freeware != Free Software. Free Software has a very specific meaning that has nothing to do with price, and for an IT journalist to get that wrong is unfortunate (and contributes to the unfortunate ambiguity that the Wikipedia article refers to, due mostly to uninformed people writing about it imprecisely in the media). The word "hacker" has been similarly corrupted.
To put it into more geek friendly terms, it's clear to most people that a lightsabre is different from a light sabre (which is lighter in weight and calories than your average sabre), despite the fact that both use the same words. People seem happy enough to expect precision from journalists when they're bandying "lightsabre" around writing about Anakin and his pops.
Posted by Dave Lane at 21:48:07 on November 15, 2011
To put it into more geek friendly terms, it's clear to most people that a lightsabre is different from a light sabre (which is lighter in weight and calories than your average sabre), despite the fact that both use the same words. People seem happy enough to expect precision from journalists when they're bandying "lightsabre" around writing about Anakin and his pops.
Posted by Dave Lane at 21:48:07 on November 15, 2011
Ok
So I'm going to get all "proper english" on you now.
The actual english language definiton of "freeware" IS "free software". The fact that Richard Stallman borrowed that specific combination of words for his own purposes, doesn't alter the dictionary definition of the term "Freeware".
Sorry Dave, but I think you're one of the very few people who are really worried about this...
Posted by Mark L at 10:48:22 on November 16, 2011
The actual english language definiton of "freeware" IS "free software". The fact that Richard Stallman borrowed that specific combination of words for his own purposes, doesn't alter the dictionary definition of the term "Freeware".
Sorry Dave, but I think you're one of the very few people who are really worried about this...
Posted by Mark L at 10:48:22 on November 16, 2011
It's about editorial precision
If this was published in a open source, or even software, journal, I would expect a rigorous use of approriate terminology, appropriate for the reader's level of understanding. Given the wider intended public audience of this article, for most readers it is a distinction without a difference. Freeware as a term will mean something roughly correct to around 100% of the readers, Open Source is technically correct, but unclear jargon to most of the audience.
Posted by Brent Wood at 17:18:45 on November 15, 2011
Posted by Brent Wood at 17:18:45 on November 15, 2011
It's about editorial precision
Mark L,
Freeware has a formal definition (refer to Wikipedia), so too do "open source" and "free software". The term Freeware is not compatible with either of the latter two, and is providing mis-information in this context. It's just careless use of terminology that clouds the waters that are already rather murky.
Posted by Dave Lane at 13:33:33 on November 15, 2011
Freeware has a formal definition (refer to Wikipedia), so too do "open source" and "free software". The term Freeware is not compatible with either of the latter two, and is providing mis-information in this context. It's just careless use of terminology that clouds the waters that are already rather murky.
Posted by Dave Lane at 13:33:33 on November 15, 2011
MOST POPULAR
- NZ game industry: Govt support for development increasing
- Raspberry Pi arrives in New Zealand
- Video, connection costs major factors in broadband uptake: ComCom
- Spotify launches in New Zealand and Australia today
- NASA on 'brink of a new future' with SpaceX launch
- No more risk to privacy on Facebook, than web: MED
Social Media @Computerworld NZ

Computerworld NZ has now reached LinkedIn! Join to expand your networks and meet others interested in information systems.






