|
RE: geodatabase
|
Maggi Kelly
|
Nov 17, 2004 10:13 PST
|
Hi all,
I am also trepidatious about moving forward with 9 for the reasons Rosie
outlined. I plan on biting the bullet in the new year. Has anyone out there
any success stories to relate?
Maggi
Maggi Kelly
Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management Department
University of California, Berkeley
http://kellylab.berkeley.edu
Mailing address:
145 Mulford #3114
Berkeley CA 94720-3114
510.642.7272
510.642.1477 fax
mke-@nature.berkeley.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosie Yacoub [mailto:RYac-@cdfa.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:51 AM
To: CalWeed-@topica.com; sec-d-@vom.com
Subject: geodatabase
I think it is worth looking at generally, since my guess is there is a lot
of capacity for capturing nuances in a geodatabase with respect to
time-series, treatments, relations with other species that might be
difficult to replicate using flat files (shapefiles). Some of this can be
done by integrating a .dbf into an Access database, but not all of it.
Since ArcGIS 9 and 8 don't seem to be easily backwards/forwards compatible ,
I am interested in knowing how many people are moving on to 9 and when. At
CDFA, we are considering it right now, so the question is a very timely one
for us. I'd say were thinking about it, and if we do so, we would likely
get it going by March or April of next year.
-----------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by the Cal-IPC Weed Mapping Committee's
CalWeedMapping listserv.
http://www.cal-ipc.org
|
|
 |
|
