1

Good

Too much vendors

More on setting up applications.

2

Overview and background to technology. "Cookbook" instructions of how to getting my data to CANRI.

Depending on the audience lighten up the technical delivery.

The instructions/case study of getting data online through CANRI.

3

Display screen too low so could not see all the information. Probably too many vendors sales pitch stuff and not enough practical information. Costs for products.

OGC Interoperability specifications. CANRI architecture.

4

Overall Open GIS steps to getting data on-line.

Some of the software package information was a bit too technical and not relevant to present working environment.

Social Change information - as had heard lots about it. Open GIS Consortium.

5

Overflow by vendors in providing Open GIS.

More examples of real time data.

Step by step guide with examples by SCO. Cant his be formally documented and be made available?

6

Great getting all the corporates up on stage.

Room a bit small (roof low - difficult to see screen from rear of room).

Range of "stuff'. Trends across organisations.

7

Having many key players from industry giving current state of web GIS applications.

No live web demos.

Intergraph presentation - lots of technical detail lacking in other presentations.

8

Thought it all worked fairly well.

XML/GML and its relationship to Open GIS standards could have been explained in more detail earlier.

Which vendors were missing. Very good.

9

That AutoDesk (a founding member of OGC and Oracle) were not presenting today. Oracle is the only Open GIS compliant database (and has been for 4 years).

Why is CANRI developing a separate system when at least 2 "off the shelf" systems are available 3-4 years ago?

10

Too short

11

Getting an idea of what other use GIS has and what their interests and requirements are.

No live web demos.

Java capabilities of ARC particularly upload and download of datasets.

12

Format of large and small groups extremely helpful. Facilitation was also excellent allowing input (fair) from all participants.

The willingness and enthusiasm of all - (expert) large and (non-expert) small users to listen and a perception that something will be done to achieve positive "the ground" outcomes for both users and providers.

13

Different aspects. Range of problems.

Too many issues to be discussed at once.

Desire for * in data.

14

Open communications and use of facilitator are both very good.

No solutions (admittedly there was not enough time to do this, let alone thrash at the issues). Another workshop to thrash issues deeper and then produce possible options for soils.

That we all agreed on (had the same) issues to address. Use of different language/terms

Great workshop!

15

Having a facilitator to guide workshop discussions.

Discussing very detailed information for concepts in a short amount of time.

Looking at the same issues relevant to us from a different perspective.

16

Fast paced discussion.

Not enough time. I think more time spent in smaller groups would improve time efficiency and succinctness of issues.

A few cynical members of the audience when is seems to me the process is working well and agencies are working well together.

17

Brevity of presentation overviews. Presentation of different agency products.

Still sounds like a lack of coordination.

DLWC scenario tool. Alignment of indicators used at local, state and national spatial setting.

18

Other discussion between the stakeholders.

Similar issues at all levels.

If CANRI is interested in working with Local Government perhaps they should consider networking/talking to, etc. with ROC groups. I know our Group REROC, which has a GIS Users Group would be most interested.

19

Listening to each other's needs.

Shortness of time.

20

Flow of information.

Lack of time and details.

Not a lot.

21

The ideas of sharing map information over the internet from a range of data users and providers.

22

The talk about how Open GIS worked the slides of Step 1 to 3.

The information on what people wanted need more community groups and natural resource committees.

The user need and Open GIS, how it works.