Cities as information systems

Back in 2011 y wrote a post in this blog which dealed with Pherecyde's Cloth myth and its relation to map making and GI managing [1]. The starting point of my thoughts were Ray Kurzweil's [2] predictions about the capacity of real things (i.e. stones) to store information. That was kind of a seminal approach to what is now known as the Internet of  Things (IOT), but taken even far beyond.

I remembered these things when I begun writing my previous entry, what took me to also remember another question related to Kurzweil's words: the importance of treating science areas as Information Systems. He explictly mentions medicine and biotechnology, but a friend of mine, Dr Lois F. R. Vázquez, has another good view on this issue as he teaches Computational Chemestry at University of A Coruña. Both of them mention the terrible impulse that all of these disciplines suffered as soon as they begun being modelled as information systems.

Given that I was, by then, developing my final work for TechniCity class at Coursera [3], I begun considering whether what I was proposing by means of the meta-framework for i-Coruña Intelligent City project wasn't actually but thinking of the city as an information system. And the more I think of it, the more I am sure that that's, precisely, the answer to build more intelligent cities by using information technologies.

Thinking that implementing IT solutions to solve given, not interconnected urban problems makes a city to be smarter is rather simplistic. By following that track, the only thing that you'll be obtaining is a set of more or less smart applications, but you will never get your target city to become smarter, and you will be far away of getting it to be more intelligent.

As the Spanish National Plan on Intelligent Cities [4] stablishes, you will only achieve that your city becomes more intelligent if you think of it in a holistic way. And that's exactly what thinking of it as an Information System produces: a holistic view on the city, with ITs being the tools to manage that view.


[1]: http://giseiel.blogspot.com.es/2011/06/pherecydes-cloth-ii-ecloth.html 
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
[3]: http://class.coursera.org/techcity-003
[4]: http://www.agendadigital.gob.es/planes-actuaciones/Paginas/plan-nacional-ciudades-inteligentes.aspx

Are smart cities really smart?

Hi again!

Several months ago, the mayoral candidate of the local branch of Spanish Socialist Party in my hometown asked me to write a paper about "smart cities". That paper should be used to define her program for the election process regarding this issue.

Due to this commission, I begun reviewing papers, publications and web sites about that matter, including that of the curent smart project of my town, of course. As a consequence, I soon got to a first conclussion: technology was generally being claimed to be "the" way to make cities to be smarter. I thought that this one was a rather reductionist point of view, as cities are very complex human organisations, and an only techy solution wouldn't ever be the answer.

By that time, I received information about the launching of a Coursera class on Techni Cities, held by Ohio State University, and, within its pre-readings, I found a very inspirational paper written by Gordon Falconer and Shane Mitchell, from Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG), and entitled: "Smart City Framework: A Systematic Process for Enabling Smart+Connected Communities". This paper put me into the way to a new perspective on smart cities and on their planning and designing processes.

From that moment on, I begun thinking of "Intelligent Cities" instead of  "Smart Cities", which I consider to be a more restrictive concept. In consequence, I started a search on the web, whether someone before me (as I presumed) had already come to similar conclusions. This way, I found the site of the Intelligent Community Forum, where I discovered a defintion for "Intelligent Communities" that did fit better whith my thoughts: "an Intelligent Community is the one which have – whether through crisis or foresight – come to understand the enormous challenges of the Broadband Economy, and have taken conscious steps to create an economy capable of prospering in it.” Nevertheles, even being wider in concept, this definition is still biased: even when it doesn't rely exclusively in technology, it is purely economic based. So, still not enough.

Some after, I knew about the publication of the Spanish National Plan for Intelligent Cities. When I reviewed its contents, I found a new definition which, moreover being more comprehensive, did also talk about "intelligent cities". So, accordingly to this definition, an intelligent city would be "the holistic vision of a city that applies ICT to improve the quality of live and accessibility of their inhabitants and assures a permanently improving economical, social and environmental sustainable development. An Intelligent City allows the interaction of citizens in a multidisciplinar way and gets adapted, in real time, to their needs, in an efficient way regarding both costs and quality, offering open data, citizen (conceived as individuals) oriented solutions and services, to solve the negative effects of city growing, within both public and private sectors, through the innovative integration of infrastructures and intelligent managing systems." Great, isn't it?

So, finally, Intelligent Cities are far beyond that techy-centered idea which is generally applied to Smart Cities and they rely on a more holistic and governance-focused conception.

When I wrote my final project for Technicity class, I did take this concept into mind. Here you can access the resulting paper:

http://www.slideshare.net/pgonzalp/i-corua-project

Acerca de la "Neutralidad Tecnológica"

 En los últimos días se viene hablando en los foros de Internet (especialmente en [1] y [2]) acerca del problema de la "Neutralidad Tecnológica" a la hora de contratar software libre desde las administraciones públicas.

Dicho problema consiste, en pocas palabras, en que la legislación española sobre contratación pública obliga a que los Pliegos de Prescripciones no fuercen a la contratación de una determinada tecnología frente a otras que pudieran ser igualmente válidas para prestar el servicio requerido. En el caso de contratos de obras o de suministros de bienes, ésto se traduce en que no se pueden indicar marcas o modelos, salvo a modo de ejemplo. Hasta ahí, ningún problema. Ahora bien, cuando se trata de adquirir software, la práctica habitual consiste en considerar que indicar que la aplicación a suministrar o desarrollar ha de ser "software libre" vulnera dicho principio, ya que impide que se presenten ofertas por empresas suministradoras de software privativo. Esta interpretación está fomentada, claro, por las grandes multinacionales del software.

Cuando se hace esa afirmación, no se tiene en cuenta que el hecho de que el software sea libre no afecta en nada a aspectos tecnológicos, y sí a las condiciones en que dicho software es entregado a la administración contratante, así como a las que afectan al modo como ésta puede hacer uso de ese software. No se tiene en cuenta, por tanto, que cuando se adquiere software privativo en realidad lo que se está "comprando" es el derecho a hacer uso de una pieza de software en unas condiciones determinadas (generalmente MUY restrictivas) y muy poco favorables para la administración, mientras que cuando se adquiere software libre se está comprando el código (o una copia del mismo) en condiciones bajo las que la administración adquirente puede hacer uso ilimitado del mismo, en tantos puestos de trabajo como desee, personalizarlo, modificarlo e, incluso, redistribuirlo bajo las mismas condiciones. Parece absurdo, por tanto, que la solución adoptada por defecto por las administraciones públicas no sólo no sea, precisamente, la de adquirir software libre, si no que se deje en manos de los ofertantes el establecimiento de las reglas del juego.

Generalmente, el problema surge en cuanto las empresas de software privativo presentan alegaciones contra un pliego en el que se exige la entrega de software libre (o "de fuentes abiertas", aunque a mí esta expresión me parece muy restrictiva y peligrosa). En este momento, entran en acción los asesores jurídicos de las administraciones afectadas, quienes tienden a dar la razón a los demandantes basándose precisamente en que "se les imposibilita a presentar ofertas".

La solución debería pasar pues por formar a los asesores jurídicos en los contenidos de las licencias libres frente a los de las privativas, y "obligarles" a leerse estas últimas de principio a fin antes de dar por sentado que ambas licencias han de gozar de igualdad de oportunidades. Este sistema, aunque necesario y conveniente, es también lento de desarrollar y desgraciadamente de resultados inciertos, ya que no es fácil hacer que un jurista cambie radicalmente de opinión acerca de un tema, no importa cuán claro sea el resultado de ese cambio.

Otra solución pasaría por cambiar la legislación al respecto, de tal modo que se fomente la contratación en los términos más favorables para la administración. Pero en los tiempos que corren no parece que este cambio sea viable.

¿En consecuencia, debemos resignarnos y aceptar el principio de Neutralidad Tecnológica como un mal inevitable? ¡En absoluto! Creo que existe una tercera vía que permitiría esquivar este escollo: consiste en redactar los pliegos de prescripciones de tal manera que no se haga en ellos mención alguna a los términos "Software Libre" o "Software de Fuentes Abiertas"; pero que, por contra, en ellos se establezca claramente cuáles han de ser las condiciones bajo las que el software ha de ser suministrado a la administración. Y para ello nada hay más fácil que, simplemente, transcribir el texto descriptivo de las famosas "cuatro libertades del software", con la correspondiente adaptación para que haga mención, en lugar de a un usuario genérico, a la propia administración contratante y a los intereses de ésta.  Por ejemplo, como sigue:

0.- La Administración contratante tendrá libertad para utilizar el software para cualquier propósito relacionado con el ejercicio de sus competencias
1.-  La Administración contratante tendrá libertad para estudiar cómo funciona el programa y modificarlo, adaptándolo a sus necesidades
2.-  La Administración contratante tendrá libertad para utilizar el programa en tantos puestos de trabajo como le resulte necesario y para distribuir copias del programa a otras administraciones públicas, entidades colaboradoras, suministradores o prestadores de servicios y a la sociedad en general.
3.- La Administración contratante tendrá libertad para mejorar el programa y hacer públicas esas mejoras, de modo que toda la sociedad se beneficie.

Creo que ningún asesor jurídico podría poner peros a estos términos, salvo que se arriesgue a ser tratado de "enemigo manifiesto de la cosa pública".

Propongo, por tanto, que desde todas las administraciones públicas se incorporen estos términos en los pliegos de prescripciones, empezando por incorporarlo a la "Guía ALIAL de Buenas Prácticas para el Desarrollo de Software Libre por las Administraciones Locales".



[1]: Software Libre y Cooperación
[2]: Asociación Iniciativa Focus

Presentación de gisEIEL 3.0

Vídeo de la presentación de gisEIEL 3.0 realizada por Miguel R. Luaces en las VII Jornadas Internacionales de gvSIG, Valencia (2011):

Segunda evolución

Como consecuencia de las modificaciones introducidas en la gestión del proyecto gisEIEL a raíz del acuerdo de colaboración con las Diputaciones de Córdoba y Ourense, la Universidad de A Coruña y el Consell Insular de Mallorca, y dado que este espacio tenía un carácter semi-oficial y que no estaba claro si servía exclusivamente para publicar comentarios y noticias referidos a gisEIEL, hemos decidido crear un blog oficial de la plataforma eielac (que incluye al portal webEIEL, a la BDT-EIEL, el nodo ideAC y gisEIEL), que servirá a partir de ahora como punto oficial de publicación de novedades, y transformar definitivamente "Going Free" en un espacio para la reflexión personal de sus autores acerca de temas relacionados con la información geográfica, los SIG, las IDE, el software y el conocimiento libres, etc

Por tanto, en los próximos días iréis viendo cómo se transforma este blog. Hemos empezado por su sub-título y seguiremos con los contenidos de la barra lateral, liberándolo de su vinculación inicial con el proyecto gisEIEL.

Pherecyde's cloth (II): The eCloth

When I wrote the previous entry on Pherecyde's cloth, I was thinking of a series of articles driving from the myth to a prospective trip on what can be the future of map making or, more precisely, of geographic information computing.

This series of articles would have explained the different stages of mapmaking evolution along time. But both the time passed since my first post, and the evidence that there are several very good web resources on that issue (e.g. BBC's "Maps: Power, Plunder and Possession"  and "The Beauty of Maps" series), have made me change my mind in the sense of deciding to close my own series of posts with just this second entry.

So, the important thing about mapmaking history with regards to what I wanted to transmit is that, from the 1970`s, the arising of CAD, automated mapping and GIS technologies have put in our hands the posibility to build up electronic, virtual representations of the territory. These representations, on despite their resolution, are generally stored as 1:1 models of our sorrounding space. And they have been highly improved from the 1990's on by means of the advancements in computer sciences and technologies (regarding both hardware and software) and the launching of digital globes, geographic mash-ups and SDI.

Due to this technological shift, we now are able of building quite complex, high resolution, almost full scaled representations of the world. So, we are closer and closer to being able to weave an ecloth, similar to that of Pherecyde but (in our case) made of bytes of information, that will perfectly reproduce our world in a 1:1 scale, as a virtual cloth lying on it. When this finally happens, we will have made that the myth comes true.

But this is not the end of the story (and not even of map making history). Let's watch a video:



Interesting, isn't it? When I saw it for the first time, about one year ago, I got highly impressed by the implications of Kurzweil's words and predictions regarding digital geographic information computing. And, when I begun relting them to Pherecyde's myth, provoqued my will of writing about this subject. Why?

Ok. Let's suppose that Kurzweil's predictions come true. If so, by the end of XXIst Century we will be inmersed in an universe that will mix real, phisical elements with virtual ones. An universe that will be, in Kurzweil's words, "As real as real life". An universe in which phisical elements (materials) of any kind will be used as information storing and processing units.

Let's go now one step beyond. Materials are information carriers. Ok. So, why not carrying all the data needed to describe/model themselves? This would not be that difficult as, accordingly again to Kurzweil's words: "The energy in a stone weighting one kilogram, equals the computing capacity needed to manage all of the information that humankind has managed this far". At this point, the above mentioned ecloth and the universe would be melted into just one single reality: the cloth will be the universe and the universe will be its own cloth. No more need to represent and model space, as space will be modelling and representing itself.

Hence, in that new mixed universe, we (our descendents, actually) will have the oportunity of both phisically and virtually move around and experiment the space that surrounds us at the time that we are experiencing its virtual representation.

And, would it be too risky to suppose that universe would, by then, become self-conscious? Think on the implications.


"Amazing!", is the least that I can say.

Agreement to cooperate in the management of gisEIEL project

After a process that started up during past November, Province Councils of A Coruña, Córdoba and Ourense, Island Council of Mallorca and University of A Coruña have agreed in signing a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate in the management, monitoring and coordinate development of gisEIEL [1] project.

As explained within the text of the MoU [2], the signing bodies agree in using BDT-EIEL geo-database and gisEIEL software to build and manage the so called EIEL (Spanish acronym for Enquiry on Local Infrastructures and Services) and, in order to rationalize the use of the available resources, have considered that inter-administrative cooperation "is, in general, wishable in order to rationalize the use of resources and guarantee the sustainibility of Public Administration actions. They also consider that, in the particular case of gisEIEL project, this cooperation will take to the optimization of the resources that are advocated to the development, management and maintaining of the project, to its persistence in time, its continuous improvement, its better fitting the interests and needs of its users and, summarizing, to its more rational management."

To reach those goals, the signing bodies set the deal of coordinating efforts and developments, as well as to annually agree about the schedule of actions to undertake, accordingly to the following

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COOPERATION:

1. The signing bodies adopt BDT-EIEL data model, from A Coruña Province Council,  as basic model to manage geo-referenced EIEL and as the foundational set of data to support a package of GIS solutions for Local Administrations.
2. They also adopt gisEIEL software as GIS tool to manage the contents of BDT-EIEL. Meanwhile gvSIG 2.0 is not available, the newest released version of gisEIEL will be used. As soon as an stable version of gvSIG 2.0 is available, the set of moules of gisEIEL 3.0 and later versions will be adopted, as well as any other gvSIG compatible software that may be gvSIG or gisEIEL compatible.
3. The signing bodies may also adopt the rest of the aplications within eielAC platform to publish and share the data contained in BDT-EIEL.
4. The developments, modifications and improvements to be undertaken from the signing of this MoU on, will be shared between the signing bodies and will be compatible with gvSIG, from its version 2.0 on, given that it constitutes the most adequate technological platform to day. The MoU Monitoring and Technical Committees may, at any moment, decide to maintain also compatibility with any other interesting software.
5. Given that the present MoU relates to a project that was started by A Coruña Province Council and University, and in order to reach the goal that all of the rest of the signing parties (including both their developres and users) may quickly and fully get confident with the shared tools, the former institutions guarantee their cooperation regarding learning and technical advisory as weel as providing the most adequate documentation thus building up a frame of knowledge and technology sharing.

[1] http://giseiel.forge.osor.eu
[2] Complete text of the MoU (in Spanish only):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OWuWltpEpQP3FM3_q_-i_uX77FObtv2OrFUGlv-wGyY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CNSpmvgJ

Acuerdo de cooperación para la gestión de gisEIEL

Tras un proceso iniciado el pasado mes de noviembre, las Diputaciones de A Coruña, Ourense y Córdoba, el Consell Insular de Mallorca y la Universidad de A Coruña han adoptado el acuerdo de formalizar un convenio de cooperación para la gestión, seguimiento y desarrollo coordinado de la aplicación gisEIEL [1].

Tal como se explica en el propio texto del convenio [2], las entidades firmantes del mismo coinciden en utilizar la base de datos BDT-EIEL y el software gisEIEL para la confección y gestión de la Encuesta sobre Infraestructuras y Equipamientos Locales (EIEL) y, a fin de racionalizar la utilización de los recursos disponibles, han considerado que la cooperación interadministrativa "es, con carácter general, deseable en orden a racionalizar el uso de recursos y a garantizar la sostenibilidad de las actuaciones de la administración pública. Consideran así mismo que en el caso particular del proyecto gisEIEL esta cooperación llevará a la rentabilización de los recursos destinados al desarrollo, gestión y mantenimiento del proyecto, a su persistencia en el tiempo, a su continua mejora, a su mejor adecuación a los intereses y necesidades de sus usuarios y, en suma, a su más racional gestión."

Para ello, se comprometen a coordinar sus esfuerzos y desarrollos, y a acordar anualmente las líneas de actuación a desarrollar, de acuerdo con los siguientes

PRINCIPIOS BÁSICOS DE COLABORACIÓN:

1. Las entidades firmantes adoptan el modelo de datos de la BDT-EIEL de la Diputación de A Coruña como modelo básico para la gestión de la EIEL georreferenciada y como base para la construcción de un paquete de soluciones SIG dirigidas a la administración local.
2. Igualmente adoptan el software gisEIEL como herramienta SIG de partida para la gestión de los datos contenidos en la BDT-EIEL. En tanto no esté disponible la versión 2.0 de gvSIG, se adoptará la última versión liberada de gisEIEL. En cuanto se publique la primera versión estable de gvSIG 2.0, se adoptarán como base el conjunto de módulos de gisEIEL 3.0 y versiones posteriores, pudiendo complementarlas en cualquier momento con otro software compatible con los anteriores.
3. Las citadas entidades firmantes podrán, así mismo, adoptar las restantes aplicaciones de la plataforma eielAC como software de publicación y compartición de los datos almacenados en la BDT-EIEL.
4. Los desarrollos, modificaciones y actualizaciones a realizar a partir de la firma del presente convenio, serán compartidos entre los firmantes y serán, en todo momento, compatibles con gvSIG, a partir de su versión 2.0, por constituir la plataforma tecnológica más adecuada en el momento presente. Igualmente, se mantendrá la compatibilidad con cualquier otro software de base o complementario que decidan los órganos técnicos de seguimiento del convenio.
5. En la medida en que este Convenio se constituye sobre un proyecto ya iniciado por la Diputación de A Coruña y la Universidad de A Coruña y con el fin de que el resto de las entidades firmantes (refiriéndose tanto a desarrolladores como usuarios finales de la aplicación) se puedan incorporar rápida y plenamente al estado actual del mismo, las dos entidades citadas garantizan su colaboración en materia de formación, asistencias técnicas y redacción de la documentación adecuada que conforme un marco de transferencia de conocimiento y tecnología adecuado.

[1] http://giseiel.forge.osor.eu
[2] Texto completo del convenio:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OWuWltpEpQP3FM3_q_-i_uX77FObtv2OrFUGlv-wGyY/edit?hl=en&authkey=CNSpmvgJ

Denial

Given the evidence that someone is spreading the "information" that gisEIEL project is dead and that, henceforth, it is to be replaced by Open gisEIEL, we want to make it clear that BOTH STATEMENTS ARE RADICALLY FALSE.
Whoever is from now on the main developers group and what is the type of contract or collaboration of this group, the project is still being directed and led by the A Coruña Province Council, which, through the Technical Monitoring Committee of the project, will continue to have ultimate capacity of decision on the actions carried out on it.  No one outside of A Coruña Province Council may therefore decide whether the project continues or not or if it is to be replaced by another one.
In short: gisEIEL currently is and will remain being alive.

Desmentido

Ante la evidencia de que se está extendiendo la "información" de que el proyecto gisEIEL está muerto y que, a partir de ahora, pasa a ser sustituído por Open gisEIEL, queremos dejar claro que AMBAS AFIRMACIONES SON RADICALMENTE FALSAS.

Independientemente de quien sea a partir de ahora el grupo principal de desarrollo y cuál sea la modalidad de contratación o colaboración de ese grupo, el proyecto sigue siendo dirigido y liderado por la Diputación de A Coruña, que, a través de la Comisión Técnica de Seguimiento del proyecto, continuará teniendo la capacidad última de decisión sobre las actuaciones que se realicen sobre el mismo. Nadie ajeno a la Diputación de A Coruña puede, por tanto, decidir si el proyecto continúa o no o si es sustituído por otro.

En resumen: gisEIEL está y continuará estando vivo.

Pherecyde's cloth (I): The cloth

Greek pre-socratic philosopher Pherecides of Syros (6th BC) [1] did explain the origin of the World, as we know it, by means of a myth.

Accordingly to him, in the origin there was the chaos inhabitted by two antagonistic "entities" or "forces": Chtonie (the solid materials) and Ogenos (the oceans or, more exactly, the waters) which would exist in a complete separation from one eachother, with no contact between them.

Zas (laterly known as Zeus, the father of Gods) would have put order into this initial chaos by fostering the meeting between these two entities and their later union, which is poetically described by Pherecydes as their "wedding".

As wedding present, Zas would have woven a large, beautiful cloth in which he would have represented, at a natural scale, earth and seas and all what they contain: geographical elements, animals, plants, minerals, atmosphere, as well as the sun, the moon, the stars, etc.

After the wedding between Chtonie and Ogenos, he would have laid the cloth on them, this way transforming Chtonie into Gea, and chaos into order. And, as a consequence, creating the World in which we now live.

By means of the act of covering the chaos with a representation of the "ordered" world, the model of the world would have become the world itself. Or, in other words (now mine, not from Pherecydes): The mapping of the world at a natural scale would have caused its actual creation.

Beautiful, isn it? Mainly if we read the legend from our perspective: the one of those who work with geographic information.




[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pherecydes_of_Syros

Liberación de la versión 2.1 de gisEIEL

En el día de hoy se ha procedido a liberar el código de la última versión de gisEIEL, la 2.1, que incorpora notables mejoras.

El código fuente de la aplicación así como toda la documentación de desarrollo está accesible desde la web de la EIEL en el siguiente enlace:

http://www.dicoruna.es/webeiel/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83&Itemid=80&lang=es

También podéis acceder a una descripción del proyecto en la página de OSOR:

http://giseiel.forge.osor.eu/

Los cambios de esta versión con respecto a la anterior incluyen revisiones/mejoras de los módulos existentes así como nuevas funcionalidades para la aplicación.

A continuación incluimos una descripción de las principales novedades de esta versión.

Mejoras de carácter general:

·         Se han corregido los errores detectados por los usuarios así como por el equipo de desarrollo, mejorando la estabilidad general de la aplicación.

·         Se han reestructurado los menús para que sea más cómodo e intuitivo su uso.

·         Se ha mejorado notablemente la organización de los proyectos así como sus dependencias y se han simplificado los ficheros de ‘ant’ necesarios para compilarlos.

Mejoras en los módulos existentes:

·         Módulo de autenticación y gestión de usuarios:

1.       Se ha incluido una caché de  servidores que permite almacenar los datos de conexión a los servidores a los que se ha accedido de forma exitosa.

·         Módulo de impresión:

2.       Corregidos los problemas de consumo de memoria que impedían imprimir con calidad muy alta

3.       Posibilidad de imprimir a 96, 300 y 600 ppp

4.       Posibilidad de poder imprimir en horizontal y vertical

5.       Nuevos tamaños de impresión, ahora la aplicación soporta A0, A1, A2, A3 y A4.

6.       Incluido módulo de gestión de leyendas de impresión que permite configurar el nombre de cada capa EIEL que aparecerá en la leyenda del mapa impreso.

·         Módulo de digitalización y edición.

1.       Añadida herramienta de edición de polígonos que permite añadir polígonos o huecos a una entidad con geometría de tipo multipolígono.

2.       Añadida herramienta de edición que permite cambiar el sentido de geometrías de tipo polilínea.

·         Módulo de formularios de entidad:

1.       Incluido soporte a subformularios. De esta forma es posible definir formularios desde los que se pueda abrir subformularios para rellenar datos relativos a una entidad. Por ejemplo los formularios de equipamientos nos permitirán abrir subformularios donde podremos gestionar los usos que se le están dando a ese equipamiento.

·         Módulo de generación de fichas municipales:

1.       Revisadas las fórmulas de índices e indicadores de la ficha.

2.       Mejorado el rendimiento del módulo y reducido el tiempo necesario para la generación de las fichas municipales.

Nuevas funcionalidades de la aplicación:

·         Asistente para exportar cartografía a SHP y DXF de forma masiva: Permite exportar a SHP y DXF capas de la BDT-EIEL pertenecientes a un conjunto de municipios de forma rápida y cómoda.

·         Nuevo módulo de conectividad de redes con las siguientes herramientas:

1.       Herramienta para la comprobación de la conectividad de redes de abastecimiento y saneamiento: Permite realizar simulaciones de recorrido de redes sobre las vistas de gvSIG, de forma que facilita la detección de posibles errores en las conexiones de los elementos que forman una red.

2.       Herramienta para el cálculo de conectividad para las redes de abastecimiento y saneamiento: permiten calcular de forma automática las asociaciones de servicio entre elementos de las redes de saneamiento y abastecimiento, y los núcleos de población.

·         Herramienta para la eliminación de núcleos EIEL: Permite eliminar de forma cómoda núcleos EIEL, reasignando todos los equipamientos e infraestructuras pertenecientes a este núcleo a un nuevo núcleo EIEL indicado por el usuario.

·         Módulo de generación de registros temporales que proporciona al usuario herramientas para:

1.       Generar en la BDT-EIEL un esquema temporal, un esquema histórico, disparadores y procedimientos almacenados que permitan implementar la gestión temporal de los datos.

2.       Guardar registros temporales de las modificaciones de los datos contenidos en la BDT-EIEL, almacenando en el esquema histórico las modificaciones que ha sufrido la BD entre distintos momentos puntuales.

Mejoras en la BDT-EIEL:

·         Introducidos datos de fases anteriores de la EIEL, lo que permite análisis históricos de evolución de las infraestructuras y equipamientos.

·         Incluido un esquema temporal, un esquema histórico, disparadores y procedimientos almacenados que permitan implementar la gestión temporal de los datos.

Cathedrals or bazaars?

Even I don´t fully agree with Reynold's proposal about Libre Software projects cathegorization [1], as I don't think that cathedrals were completely built by hierarchical organizations, whilst  bazaars are not actually "that" collaborative, there is no doubdt that it has been widely adopted by the LS community. Thus thinking about projects as bazaar-like managed is what prevails. And, well, maybe that, in general, this is the case with must LS projects. But, what happens with Public Administration led ones? Do they properly fit bazaar paradigma?

I begun thinking about this issue when we were preparing gisEIEL project releasing, last year. Being the "bible" of LS projects managing, I was then trying to follow Karl Fogel's reccomendations at his well known book "Producing Open Source software" [2]. But as we progressed in gisEIEL releasing tasks, I begun being more and more aware about that our project COULDN'T follow all of those reccomendations. As a consequence, I tried to figure out wether this happened to every PA led project.

To help myself in that task, I launched PA FOSS, a web based enquiry (not currently available) that contained a series of questions regarding all of the main points that Fogel mentions in his book. Even announced at several fora, it was completed just by four project managers (including myself), what can not be considered as statitically representative at all. Anyway, the contents of those four answers are homogeneous enough as to suspect that, when dealing with projects from Public Administration bodies, my thoughts about the existence of constrains to follow bazaar model are something more than just an intuition.

Why do I think so? Well, let's have a look at some of the results of the enquiry:

i. Developing

 In all of the four cases, developing is being made by teams from the own leading PA body, its associated institutions or contrated companies. In no case it was made by a free and self organized community.

Developing decissions are, thus, taken by project managing teams.

ii. Project releasing
All of the four projects were firstly released only when they had achieved all of the decided functionality. No alfa, beta or candidate releases. No code sharing until the applications were fully developed and functional enough. And, by the time when the enquiry was held, this applied as well to former versions.

iii. Funding
 Again, in no case funding came, not even partially, from the community or from private sources. Developing costs were totally paid with Public Administration funds.

iv. Community
So, is there any "community" around those projects? Well! Yes, it is! But not a self organized one. In general, what exists is a more or less wide series of tools to support the use of the applications and the intercommunication between their users and the project managing team, regarding mainly issues such as news announcement, applications testing, improvement proposals, bug tracking and so on. In some cases (i.e. gisEIEL [3]), there is also a Community Code of Conduct that rules that community's activity.

As said, this pattern does perfectly fit both four projects. Only in the case of gvSIG [4], given its wide success and the fact that its use has spreaded all over the world, the Public Administration body that launched the project (Generalitat Valenciana, in Spain) has begun to feel "over charged" by managing tasks and has been preparing project's total independence and self managing by means of the constitution of an Association that will take care of gvSIG from some time in this year on. From that moment, the project will no more depend on GV decissions and funding and, in the close future, these will only regard the developing of given components that the mentioned institution may be interested in.

But, why does this happen? Why PA lead projects seam to be that tightly dependent on PA bodies decissions and that poorly built on communities activity? Well, PA activities are tightly controled by a broad series of legislative rules that try to assure that they rely, between other principles, on that of the save and care use of public funds and on that PA bodies have always to preserve their prestige and public trusting. This implies that wells, services and products paid with public funds can not be distributed if they do not pass quality and completeness controls. The responsibility (and liability) of PA bodies on those products are clearly higher than in the case of those produced by private institutions. So, regarding PA Libre software projects, "control" is, more than a convenience, an absolute need. If not a legal imposition.

And this makes that a new question arises: are them actually "Libre" projects? In my opinion, must of them are. Freedom does not depend on how much community driven are the projects, but on what are the conditions under which the software is released. As far as they are distributed under an approved "Libre" license, with no added use constrains, for me they are "Libre" themselves. Tighter or looser managed, more or less community driven, but "Libre" anyway.

So, cathedrals or bazaars?


PS: As you probably noticed, I do always use the expresion "Libre Software" instead of "Free Software". That's because I understand that "Free" is quite a more ambiguous word (remember that of "Free as in freedom, not free as in free beer", what becomes useless if you simply use "Libre" instead). And, moreover this, "Libre" is independent from any given definition of what can be considered as "free" or "non free" software [5] [6], what IMHO becomes a valuable added value. :-)

[1]: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/
[2]: http://producingoss.com/
[3]: http://www.dicoruna.es/webeiel/giseiel/soportecomunidad.do
[4]: http://www.gvsig.org
[5]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[6]: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

SIGNERGIAS (II)_en

One month and one half after we SIGNERGIAS, workshop took place, I'm pleased to announce the its main consequence has been the launching of SIGNERGIAS Network. This way, what was born as a punctual event has evolved into an organization with the aim of persistence in time.

 

All of the information regarding the network is already available at its web site [1], as well as the minutes of the first meeting and the aditional documentation.

Next meeting: during Libre SIG Workshop at Girona next month.

[1] http://www.dicoruna.es/webeiel/signergias

SIGNERGIAS (II)_es

Mes y medio más tarde de haber celebrado el taller SIGNERGIAS, me cabe el placer de anunciar que el principal resultado de dicho taller ha sido la constitución de la RED SIGNERGIAS, de tal manera que lo que nació como una experiencia puntual se convierte así en una organización con voluntad de permanencia en el tiempo.

 

Toda la información está ya disponible en su sede web [1], junto con el acta de la reunión celebrada y la documentación adicional.

Próxima reunión: Durante las Jornadas de SIG Libre, en Girona.

[1] http://www.dicoruna.es/webeiel/signergias

Signergias.en

After several months of not publishing any new posts at this blog, I'm back to announce the holding of signergias , workshop during which we pretend establishing the basements for the mutual collaboration between the four main Libre GIS projects in Spain: gvSIG, gisEIEL, LocalGIS e IDEACV, by focusing on the integration of municipal managing utilities and on their interoperability, in order to avoid parallel developings and the consequent duplicities.

At workshop's site we will publish every documentation that is developed along it, and at this blog we will post all of the news that may surge regarding this issue.

Signergias.es

Tras un parón de unos meses en la incorporación de entradas a este blog (que no de trabajo en gisEIEL), vuelvo para anunciaros la próxima celebración de signergias , taller en el que pretendemos sentar las bases para la colaboración mutua entre los cuatro principales proyectos españoles de SIG libre: gvSIG, gisEIEL, LocalGIS e IDEACV, con el foco puesto en la integración de utilidades de gestión municipal y en su interoperabilidad, a fin de evitar desarrollos paralelos y las consiguientes duplicidades.

En la web del taller iremos publicando toda la documentación que se genere durante la celebración del mismo, y en este blog os iremos aportando las noticias que vayan surgiendo sobre dicho tema.

About the future of this blog

Hi again!

This posting will suppose a change in the course that this blog has been following this far.

'Going Free' was born as part of my practicum at Libre Software Master, held by Caixanova, Igalia and Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. It would be the log of my work regarding the releasing of gisEIEL project. And, being an accademic exercise, it would:

• Be personally (and exclusively) written by me
• Relate only to gisEIEL project, and
• Be written in English (Yes, that was the very reason! What were you thinking of? :-D )

But in the meanwhile, it became the official news bulletin of our project, and now that the Master ends (Buaaahhhh!!!!!! LOC!!!!!! -Lots of crying-), the blog itself gets free of any conditionings. Hence from now on it may happen that you find that some postings are not written by me, but by any of the core developers and managers. Puede también ocurrir que algunas entradas estén escritas en español. Ou en galego. Oppure in Italiano. Aagso i dansk. Or in any other language, just in the same way as we decided having a single set of collaborative tools, despite what's the language of each single contributor, this way taking full advantage of the fact that we all can communicate one with all of the rest through the Internet and its tools.

A crazy experiment? Well, maybe! But as in the song:

The future will tell us

¿Qué será, será?

(or "Che sará, sará?", depending on the versions)

What will be, will be?

We don't believe in misticisms, but we strongly believe in "mestizaje". And as 'Blade Runner' followers, we also believe in "interlingua" ;-)

Our project is not very big, at least by the moment, and this fact will (I hope) let us keep things under control.

Finally, even still focused on gisEIEL, this blog may be open to other subjects. But always (and this is a promise) relating to GIS and Libre Software realms.

So: Farewell, you old blog! Wellcome (bienvenido, benvido, benvenutto, benvingut, welkome, willkomen,...) new 'Going Free'!

Call for help

Here we are again. After beach days, we are now working again in our project.

Next tasks to be undertaken are pretty much adequate to be developed by community members, what would be of great help. These are:

1. Localizing our software to other languages. First two are Galician and English, but we won't reject any other possibility.
2. Installing and testing gisEIEL under different OS: Unix/Linux (different distros), MacOS

In the first case, we need previously getting source code conveniently prepared, but we have already put hands on it.

In the latter, no previous action is needed: testers will have all the control on their hands. We just need that they  provide us with documentation on the experience, difficulties and solutions adopted until the application do correctly run on the selected OS.

Any volunteer to do some of these tasks?

Consell Insular de Mallorca adopts gisEIEL

After a period of checking our software, Consell Insular de Mallorca (Majorca Island Council) has decided to adopt gisEIEL as software tool to manage EIEL and to be used as integration environment for all of their other GIS applications.

To prepare that adoption, a meeting was held at Diputación de A Coruña on 23rd July 2008 along which technicians from both institutions, as well as developers from UdC Database Lab, have discussed about what are the probable difficulties to overcome and the way to do so. Information on that meeting has been published at Diputación de A Coruña web site.

Now, it is Diputación de Valencia (Valencia Province Council) technicians who are evaluating gisEIEL. Hope that they also decide joining us.