Open Malaysia

An interesting article from "The American Surveyor" (with a novel  tagline "A Foot in the Past ... an Eye to the Future") written by Joel Leininger highlights the archival problems surveyors face in ensuring long term data access to their surveying information. [pdf]

The article is interesting because the author draws parallels between  document file formats and the file formats used in surveying. The same problems with electronic data retention arise; the longevity of the information, the risk of companies going away and taking away access to your data, incompatible formats and vendor driven interests over end-user's needs.

... permanent records must have a permanent means of access. Absent such means, permanency is a sham.

He gives examples of how vendors skimp on functionality for data interchange due to either commercial interest or laziness.

Although most every COGO [coordinate geometry] package could import and export ASCII coordinate lists, few [vendors] bothered with ancillary files. How about those triangular irregular networks? Sets or linework files? Early field data collection? To the extent that those files were necessary to gain the full benefit of the original work, it is likely they are still. And yet, they remain cloistered.

This still happens even in the MSOOXML world, where instead of exporting MathML (the industry standard), Microsoft Office 2007 either uses its own version of XML (OMML - OfficeMathML), or when downgrading to the (more widely used) binary and proprietary formats, equations are exported as non editable and typographically unfriendly graphics. Additionally, "ancillary" formatting tags like "lineWrapLikeWord6" (and many more) also remain "cloistered."

The author yearns for a standardisation of surveying file formats believes that the model of how the OpenDocument Format (ODF) was created is how the National Society of Professional Surveyors should proceed:

ODF is a format promulgated by OASIS, an international standards-setting consortium of major software and hardware vendors, and incorporated into a number of office suites. Its primary advantage is that the format is owned by no single vendor, and longevity of access is a prime consideration in its future development

Fortunately when you adopt open standards like ODF, other benefits automatically come with it;  we are "freed" from the commercial whims of vendors.

As important, vendor-neutral formats foster choice in software selection at the consumer level, eliminating "vendor lock-in." Microsoft Word has one of the worst track records for file compatibility across versions, primarily due to Microsoft's business interests in inducing users to continually upgrade to the latest version.

Mr Leininger also writes that having multiple standards within the same domain (ODF and MSOOXML both describe word processing, spreadsheets and presentation documents)  is counterproductive if not dangerous.

Can we agree that standardization is in everyone's best interest? Surely both vendors and consumers of music compact disks recognize the utility of having every disk play in every player. Not having to worry about whether that electric outlet is 60hz or 50hz simplifies buying appliances, reduces the risk of fire, and removes at least one worry from the mother of every nine-year-old boy. Why must surveyors settle for this Babel of formats?

This is what consumers want demand:  A Single Standard with Multiple Applications. Any other interpretation is detrimental to users.

yk.