Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are by their nature data driven. The data comes in a wide variety of raster and vector formats. Rasters hold raw, continuous data recorded striaght from the real world. An example is Satellite/aerial imagery, this is a commonly held in an open format with broad support, such as GeoTIFF or GeoJPEG. Vector formats hold refined, discrete data, which has been manually traced or otherwise derived other data sources. Examples include building outlines, contours, road routes, pipe networks land land parcels and locations. Vector data is usually traced or derived, at great expense from raster data, to encode business information - as a result it’s usually highly valuable. Unfortunately, there are many GIS vector file formats, and most are proprietary. They can only be used to their full in their native software. Three of the biggest are AutoCAD DXF, MapInfo TAB and ArcGIS Personal Geodatabase. One vector format is unique - both an open standard, and in wide use: Shapefile Shapefile is publicly documented in ESRI Shapefile Technical Description by ESRI Inc., it’s creator. Any GIS software worth it’s salt can read and write to the format, so it’s become the least common denominator. It is the format for storing and exchanging vector data between teams, departments, businesses and government. In my opinion this makes Shapefile the best thing ever to happen to GIS, without it the GIS market would be a fraction of it’s current size. Despite it’s popularity, Shapefile does have some serious limitations, mainly due to it’s DBF heritage:
- A shapefile is limited to
24 GB or 655354 billion/len(record) records. Where len(record) is greater of either the average feature length in bytes, or the length of a DBF record.
- Records are limited to
100065536 bytes or 32between 257 & 2038 fields.
- Field names are limited to
810 characters, character fields can hold up to 254 bytes.
- Unicode is
not supportednot widely supported.
Currently the only real alternative, for data exchange, is Geography Markup Language (GML) as defined by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). An XML dialect, GML has none of the limitations of Shapefile this is why Ordnance Survey use GML to supply MasterMap, a highly detailed vector map of Great Britain. Support for GML in software is growing, but it’s unsuitable as a storage format. Viewing and editing vector data requires support for random access by attribute and by spatial extent. As an XML dialect GML cannot do this, to find one record, the entire file must be parsed from beginning to end. GML is almost always converted to another format, or loaded into a spatial database before it is used. A spatial database is a database with data types and functions able to handle geospatial data. For the major databases there is Oracle Spatial, PostgreSQL PostGIS, SQL Server Spatial, MySQL Spatial and DB2 Spatial Extender. All are based on Simple Features for SQL an open standard, meaning spatial data can be queried and updated with SQL like any other data type. I believe that a portable, standalone spatial database, would make a very good successor to Shapefile. Such a format would drive the GIS market forward, increasing usage of GIS by making it easier to share edit, publish and share GIS data. A portable spatial database would negate the need for the import, view, edit, export cycle that GML imposes. At the moment I see 3 contenders for the crown:
- File Geodatabase is a format from ESRI, it is natively supported by ArcGIS. ESRI proclaim it “Allow[s] users to easily exchange geodatabases.” That is true only if both users are running ESRI’s ArcGIS software. File Geodatabase is a proprietary format, despite promises by ESRI when it was launched.
- Spatial Data Format (SDF) is a format from Autodesk, it is native support . Support is included as part of their Feature Data Objects library, released as Open Source. SDF is based on the popular SQLite embedded database engine.
- Spatialite is another format based on SQLite, by an Alessandro Furieri. Spatialite is in it’s infancy still, it’s first release was 11 months ago.
Unfortunately none of these looks like it will become a clear winner any time soon. Each is supported by only one application currently. If ESRI releases the specification for File Geodatabase, I expect it will quickly gain widespread support due to their position as market leader. As open source applications such as QGIS gain Spatialite support, it could slowly achieve dominance in a grass roots fashion. SDF seems to be going nowhere. So ESRI, please publish the details of File Geodatabase. At it’s launch, during the 2006 ESRI User Conference, you promised that File Geodatabase would be an interoperable format. You promised to release a software library, so we could read and write them without ArcGIS. Neither has happened. So File Geodatabase is just another closed format, another pretender to the throne that’s achieved only 1% of it’s true potential. Publish File Geodatabase, or we’ll take the Shapefile crown by force. Update 27 Mar 2009: Corrected Shapefile limits, based on Xbase file structure rather than dBASE software specifications.