We, the undersigned, are concerned that the current interoperability between LiDAR applications, through use of the open "LAS" format, is being threatened by Esri's introduction and promotion of an alternative "Optimized LAS" proprietary format. This is of grave concern given that fragmentation of the LAS format will reduce interoperability between applications and organisations, and introduce vendor lock-in. …To be clear, Esri has extended LAS to create "Optimized LAS" which provides near identical features and performance to the existing and open LASzip format, both of which provide faster access and smaller file sizes to the LAS format. However, rather than collaborate with the open community, as has been repeatedly offered, "Optimiszed LAS" has been developed internally to Esri. It is neither published, nor open, which provides both technical as well as legal barriers for other applications reading and/or writing to this proprietary format. This creates a vendor lock-in scenario which is contrary to the principles of the Open Geospatial Consortium, the OSGeo Foundation, and many government IT procurement policies.
Esri responded to the open request to avoid fragmenting LiDAR standards with the following motherhood statement, which doesn't actually answer the key questions:
Regarding Dr. Anand’s concerns and the referenced letter below:Lets refute Esri's statement line by line:
Esri has long understood the importance of interoperability between systems and users of geographic information and services. Esri has participated in the development of national, information community, OGC, and ISO TC 211 standards from the development of the US Spatial Data Transfer Standard in the 1980s through the development of OGC Geopackage today. As a sustaining member of ASPRS and a Principle member of OGC, Esri would gladly participate in efforts to further the development of open LIDAR and point cloud standards. Keep in mind that ASPRS owns and maintains LAS, along with other spatial information standards, and would have the lead in moving it into OGC or ISO TC211 for further work if they so desired. Esri will continue to support and use the ASPRS LAS standard; the Optimized LAS (see FAQ at https://github.com/Esri/esri-zlas-io-library) is not intended to replace LAS but to enhance access to remotely stored LIDAR information for our users.
Esri has long understood the importance of interoperability between systems and users of geographic information and services.
- Nice motherhood statement. Notice that Esri carefully selects the words "understood the importance" rather than "we commit to implementing".
Esri has participated in the development of national, information community, OGC, and ISO TC 211 standards from the development of the US Spatial Data Transfer Standard in the 1980s through the development of OGC Geopackage today.
- More motherhood words talking about standards in general without answering the specific question about fragmenting of the LAS standard.
- Esri also failed to mention Esri's embarrassing attempt to get the GeoServices REST API approved as an OGC standard, despite it competing directly against existing OGC standards. (Esri would have benefited by this, at the expense of geospatial users and competing products.) The OGC community backlash led to a retraction of GeoServices REST API from the OGC, and a reformation of OGC processes to avoid a similar situation happening again.
As a sustaining member of ASPRS and a Principle member of OGC, Esri would gladly participate in efforts to further the development of open LIDAR and point cloud standards.
- Nice statement, without any quantifiable commitment. Will Esri put it into practice? Track record suggests otherwise. As explained by Marin Isenburg, Esri has talked a lot about collaboration and being open, while in parallel creating a competing proprietary format. If Esri were seriously committed to open LiDAR standards, Esri would publish "Optimized LAS" under an Open License, and/or take "Optimized LAS" through a standards development process such as provided by the OGC. Esri would have also build upon the prior LASzip format rather than redeveloping equivalent functionality.
Keep in mind that ASPRS owns and maintains LAS, along with other spatial information standards, and would have the lead in moving it into OGC or ISO TC211 for further work if they so desired.
- Again, if Esri had the best interests of ASPRS and Open Standards in mind (as you would expect from a sustaining member), then we'd expect Esri to donate their LAS improvements back to the ASPRS for safe keeping. Why is Esri keeping such improvements in an Esri proprietary format instead?
- Esri would be also lobbying ASPRS to accept improvements to the LAS format. Has this happened? Lack of public discussion on this topic suggests otherwise.
Esri will continue to support and use the ASPRS LAS standard; the Optimized LAS (see FAQ at https://github.com/Esri/esri-zlas-io-library) is not intended to replace LAS but to enhance access to remotely stored LIDAR information for our users.
- Esri is sidestepping the issue. The LAS standard needs improvements. These improvements have been implemented by the open LASzip format and also by Esri's proprietary Optimized LAS. One should be incorporated into a future LAS standard.
- The question Esri fails to answer is why does Esri refuse to work in collaboration with the open community? Why has Esri developed their own Optimized LAS format instead of improving an existing standard format?
- Esri's FAQ, explains that esri-zlas-io-library is stored on github under the Apache license, which would make you think the code is Open Source and hence the Optimized LAS format could be reverse engineered. This is not the case. Esri has only licensed the binaries under the Apache license such that it can't be reverse engineered or improved by the community. By the OSI definition, this is not Open Source Software.
