[Big-devel] Fwd: AVH software implementation

[Jim C. <jr...@an...>]

The email note below was sent off list to a number of hiscom members who 
had been fiddling with implementation and installation of the AVH software 
and is basically a call to arms (and panic) in relation to getting the AVH 
into a launchable state.

Greg has brought the AVH distribution code to the top of his pile and I 
hope others are doing likewise.

we are now taking to conversation, and hopefully subsequent applications 
development, across to the BIG Developers list on 
big...@li...

I have copied this email to hiscom because I notice a numbers are not on 
the BIG Developers email list.

Hope everyone can join the party...

jim


>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:00:37 +1100
>To: gh...@an..., Pet...@rb..., be...@ca..., 
>ken...@rb..., Co...@la...
>From: Jim Croft <jr...@an...>
>Subject: AVH software implementation
>Cc: mur...@ea..., sd...@an..., jud...@cs..., 
>tim...@rb...
>
>ok guys - apart from tarting up html pages, Siobhan, Murray and I have got 
>as far as we can get...
>
>    http://www.chah.gov.ay/avh
>
>all the pointers to mapper nodes go to a watch this space stub until 
>people can assure us they are happy with the locality details that are 
>being released to the public.
>
>The AVH Trust is about to meet and it would be nice to have at least one 
>site linked in that can deliver real data at a suitable public resolution.
>
>What is required now is some serious effort on the mapper so we can link 
>to some active nodes that deliver the same query form and the same information.
>
>How are we going to get this damn thing to happen?  Quickly?
>
>Peter has rewritten one of the executables to do more of what we want to 
>do and placed it sourceforge - have others installed it?   Can it become 
>part of the distribution?   Does it need any discussion and tweaking of 
>configuration to achieve the output we want?
>
>Can someone attack some of the other files?
>
>We have circulated a mockup of what we want the avh.cgi query screen to 
>look like (an extra row to cover infraspecies, additional classes of GIS 
>coverages, links to help files etc.   We can not fudge this with external 
>HTML - it has to be built into the scripts.  Who is going to do 
>this?  Like right now?
>
>Ken:  you were going to follow up some of the global GIS coverages I sent 
>the URL for from Brazil.  How did you go?  People really like the 
>rendition of the relief and bathymetry on these layers - they are much 
>more aesthetically pleasing than the ones we have been using.  Can we cut 
>these into the application and make these part of the distribution?
>
>Murray and Siobhan can not get any further with the explanation pages for 
>the map output until we finalize what it is going to look like.  This too 
>is part of the AVH scripts and configuration files  who is going to get at 
>this?
>
>The links to other resources page needs a bit of work to add some 
>additional resources and links to explanatory stuff?  Is that a separate 
>module that one of us can work on?
>
>Is the separation of the public query/result and the internal query/result 
>clear enough?  Are we the herbaria getting everything and are the public 
>getting an acceptable subset?  Is there a leakage of private stuff to the 
>public arena that is likely to freak anyone out?
>
>We really do need an avh example of a bounding box query (range of 
>lat/long) that returns a list of species or specimens (perhaps the latter 
>for internal use only to start with).
>
>I have a list of things that needs doing that is so long that it makes me 
>ill to think about it...  what is stressing me out is that nearly all of 
>them now are part of the avh code and beyond my control.  I can not do or 
>change anything.  I am relying on you guys to help me out here.  I am 
>talking serious desperation...
>
>I am having this initial conversation off line to see if we can get things 
>moving quickly... it needs to be the highest priority on all our desks at 
>the moment... we are starting to lose serious credibility here at a time 
>when we are expecting the Trust to go hunting for significant money for us 
>and when we are trying to come up with a product we can share with OZCAM 
>and others and get us out of this KE IP bind.  Once we get moving (i.e. 
>after this email) I would like to move discussion back into the wider 
>forum - what do you think Ben?  the hiscom or the big-devel list, being 
>conscious of the fact that a number of hiscom participants are not members 
>of the latter?
>
>jim
>
>~ Jim Croft ~ jr...@an... ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~

~ Jim Croft ~ jr...@an... ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~