MapInfo TAB & MapInfo MID/MIF Format Details ?
swebb99
I'm writing a light weight GIS in Java and I need to parse some
overlay files that are sent to me in MapInfo TAB format (DAT, TAB, ID,
MAP, IND) but on looking at the files they seem to be in some binary
format. I was expecting files to be in MapInfo format but I'd been
looking at the spec for MapInfo Data Interchange Format (MID/MIF)
where the files all seem to be ascii.
Are there any sites that describe the TAB format so I can figure out
what I need to write to read in a overlay file. I can't find anything
at the moment. The example overlay I have is just a simple line
polygon and the MAP file seems to contain the info I am interested in
but without knowing the format I'm stuck.
Thanks
Steve
Mats Elfström
Try this link
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mid%2Fmif+format
HTH Mats.E
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MapInfo-L" group.
To post to this group, send email to mapi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mapinfo-l+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mapinfo-l?hl=en.
--
______________________________________________
Mats Elfström, Väpplingvägen 21, SE-227 38 LUND, Sweden
tel: +46 46 145959 / mob: +46 70 595 39 35
alt e-mail: mats.e...@telia.com
Mats Elfström
Sorry wrong link above.
I meant to send this
http://mitab.maptools.org/
Mats.E
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MapInfo-L" group.
To post to this group, send email to mapi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mapinfo-l+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mapinfo-l?hl=en.
swebb99
MapInfo TAB format. Most of the files seem to be a binary format!
Steve
Richard Greenwood
http://mitab.maptools.org/
Or GDAL which supports many formats:
http://www.gdal.org/
Rich
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MapInfo-L" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mapi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mapinfo-l+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mapinfo-l?hl=en.
>
>
--
Richard Greenwood
richard....@gmail.com
www.greenwoodmap.com
swebb99
anywhere that actually described the contents of the files that make
up the TAB format ? Looking at a small demo overlay I have with a
polygon in it the MAP files would appear to contain the coordinates of
the polygon if I look at the file using a hex viewer but I don't know
the actual format of the data and how its encoded.
Thanks
Steve
Gentreau
Before reverse engineering a file format, it may be wise to check whether it
is somebody's intellectual property and legally protected / copyrighted
.....
Thanks
Steve
--
swebb99
> is somebody's intellectual property and legally protected / copyrighted
Errr so are you saying that I can't write my own code to read the file
format ? I had thought that if I had read some documentation on the
file format and written my own code that would be fine ! Can a file
format be copyrighted so I can't actually write code to read files in
that format ?
Thanks
Steve
Lars I. Nielsen (GisPro)
The TAB format is a proprietary non-published format owned by PB/MapInfo. Nevertheless, it was reverse-engineered when MITab was constructed, sofar without anyone being sued for infringement, as far as I know.
I guess you'll have to decide how to proceed yourself, but access to the MITab source code does not infer any rights to using the format as such. You also need to take into account the license for using the MITab source code, if that's the path you choose to take.
Anyone know whether PB/MapInfo has ever endorsed the MITab library ?
Ps! The Mif/Mid format is a published export format, so there you're on safe ground.
Pps! PB/MapInfo used to sell the royalty based MFAL C++ library for full access to the TAB file format. Anyone know if this is still the case ?
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen Lars I. Nielsen GIS & DB Integrator GisPro
swebb99 skrev:
Gentreau
Just because you can, or somebody else did, doesn't necessarily make it
legal.
Of course, it is up to the IPR owner to decide whether to allow others to
use his file format or to persue them, or to wait until they make money out
of it
and then charge them significant licence fees.
In most cases the format owner won't care if you write code to read/write hs
format
for your own purposes, and he probably will never know, but if the code is
for commercial purposes
then he may have grounds to demand fees.
Of course, if you use a licenced copy of MapInfo to access TAB files, then
you are on safe ground.
-----Original Message-----
From: mapi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapi...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of swebb99
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:31 PM
To: MapInfo-L
Subject: [MI-L] Re: MapInfo TAB & MapInfo MID/MIF Format Details ?
Thanks
Steve
--
swebb99
Interesting, I'll bear this in mind as it could have implications in
how I progress.
> Ps! The Mif/Mid format is a published export format, so there you're on safe ground.
Ah this is interesting. I'll need to find out if I can obtain my
overlays in the format rather than TAB.
Thanks for the information Lars that was very helpful.
Bill Thoen
> Before reverse engineering a file format, it may be wise to check whether it
> is somebody's intellectual property and legally protected / copyrighted
>
And that's iffy too if the content is publicly available facts or has no
creative content ( I think it was the Feist case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service
that set the precedent. ) This one might surprise you, as it has
implications for map-makers. Basically, it means that the expression of
your map (style, graphics, labeling -- that which makes it beautiful)
is protected. But not the "facts" of geographic location of say, farm
field boundaries surveyed at great expense by you before transcribing
them to your map. The Feist decision basically says that anyone can
trace those boundaries straight off you map and resell them; and they
don't have to compensate you at all!
Besides, how long do you think the FOSS OGR and GDAL people would stay
in business if ESRI or MapInfo or AutoDesk had a winnable case?
So knock yourself out trying to reverse engineer those tables! But "Open
Source" means that sometimes you have to open the source, so take a look
at the MITAB source code and save yourself some effort.
--
- Bill Thoen
GISnet - www.gisnet.com
303-786-9961
Lars I. Nielsen (GisPro)
Gentreau wrote:
Before reverse engineering a file format, it may be wise to check whether it
is somebody's intellectual property and legally protected / copyrighted
I don't believe that you can protect a file _format_; only the contents. (...)
I disagree. The specs of a file format is an invention, and as such it's protectable. The content may also be protectable, as it represents a commercial value.
But as I wrote, no one to my knowledge has been sued for infringements for building MITab, so I'm not sure whether PB/MapInfo minds the reverse engineering, as it does make the TAB format more available. This being so, I can't understand why they haven't just gone the full way, and published the format specs.
Gentreau
From: mapi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lars I. Nielsen (GisPro)
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:39 AM
To: mapi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MI-L] Re: MapInfo TAB & MapInfo MID/MIF Format Details ?
Bill Thoen
> Bill Thoen skrev:
>> Gentreau wrote:
>>> Before reverse engineering a file format, it may be wise to check
>>> whether it
>>> is somebody's intellectual property and legally protected / copyrighted
>>>
>> I don't believe that you can protect a file _format_; only the
>> contents. (...)
>
> I disagree. The specs of a file format is an invention, and as such
> it's protectable. The content may also be protectable, as it
> represents a commercial value.
>
http://www.fileformat.info/mirror/egff/ch08_09.htm. And the Feist case
even shot down the "commercial value" argument, much to my surprise.
Lars I. Nielsen (GisPro)
If the file format contains protectable innovation, i.e. it's not "just (a) specific arrangements of information present in some type of medium or media", then it's a whole different ball game. The GIF format included the LZW compression algoritm, and subsequently the GIF format was protected, and you needed to pay royalties to use it (until the patent expired). The TAB format includes the R-tree indexing, which is a similar algoritm, and so the format itself may be protectable, imho.
As for the data content not being protectable, try to tell this to Navtech et.al. that lives by buying and selling data world-wide. I'm sure they don't agree that their data doesn't represent a commercial value :-)
Lars I. Nielsen (GisPro)
True, but if they implicitly allow MITab, why continue to hide the format ? As far as I understand, MITab is still functionally limited wrt. e.g. updating.
PB/MapInfo could publish access to the TAB format as a free API, e.g. built upon MFAL. They don't need to publish the file format specs if they really don't want to, and still reap the benefits of having the format being more widely used.
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen Lars I. Nielsen GIS & DB Integrator GisPro
Mats Elfström
When writing tab files, FME gives the option of using either MFAL or MITAB, and I'm fairly confident that MI Pro accepts that co-existence.
The contents of a map cannot be copyrighted, because anyone can produce exactly the same result. The location of world features is not an original work as defined in copyright law. Map design is.
But it makes me sad that so much evolves around legalities and means to commercialise and lock in knowledge and data. Lately I have been more and more interested in Open Source and Community Mapping where the rules aim for the opposite, to spread and make use of data and knowledge instead of locking it in. I think the industry would have more to gain if we tried to broaden our field a bit more.
Regards, Mats.E
--
Gentreau
From: mapi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mats Elfström
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:57 AM
Lars I. Nielsen (GisPro)
I've been working with Open Source development for more than 7 years now, and think it's a great concept that spurs both creativity and innovation. But just as commercial development has it's limits, so does open source ditto. I think that both have a role to play in the foreseeable future.
Rights of ownership is a fact of life. It's great - and encourageble - to have communities that share items of value, but as people still need to earn money to put food on their tables, they need to sell some produce for a profit. Even open source developers need that, so commercial enterprise need to be present somewhere in the loop. Very many open source projects do have fully employed contributors, they just earn their money elsewhere. E.g. much of the OpenOffice development is (or was) sponsored by Sun.
In the case at hand, I just wanted to have everyone recognize, that the TAB format is still neither open nor free nor published (like Shape), and that PB/MI still has full ownership and copyright. Whether they want to use that right to prevent anyone from reverse-engineering the format is another matter, but it doesn't really diminish their rights to the product. And I never mentioned patents, which is yet another ball game.
You write that one cannot copyright the content of a map. This is not true, the actual bits in a dataset file are a representation of the data you've put into the file, and these are therefore the owner's intellectual property. If you purchase a CD with data, you're usually not entitled to distrubute copies of it to whomever you choose, regardless of what data it contains. It's true that it's not an exclusive right to create a similar dataset, e.g. build another street network like OpenStreetMap in competition with NavTech's, but an actual dataset is as such copyrighted as far as I know. Just as a specific picture taken by a renowned photographer cannot be used without his consent, even though it portrays a common landmark. Instead you're free to take your own picture, which will then be your intellectual property.
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen Lars I. Nielsen GIS & DB Integrator GisPro
Bill Thoen
> Bill Thoen skrev:
>> Lars I. Nielsen (GisPro) wrote:
>>> Bill Thoen skrev:
>>>> Gentreau wrote:
>>>>> Before reverse engineering a file format, it may be wise to check
>>>>> whether it
>>>>> is somebody's intellectual property and legally protected /
>>>>> copyrighted
>>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that you can protect a file _format_; only the
>>>> contents. (...)
>>>
>>> I disagree. The specs of a file format is an invention, and as such
>>> it's protectable. The content may also be protectable, as it
>>> represents a commercial value.
>>>
>> No, it's not. Check this out:
>> http://www.fileformat.info/mirror/egff/ch08_09.htm. And the Feist
>> case even shot down the "commercial value" argument, much to my
>> surprise.
>
> Well, a lawyer could make a case even against common sense, I'm sure.
> But the case at hand is not as simple as the page you give leads one
> to think.
"money talks and suckers walk" because new law is decided by debate and
precedent, and you need to spend a lot to get the sort of legal talent
who win arguments and can find favorable past cases. Good law isn't
discovered whole and ready to apply. It's made up as we go along, and
it's not always made from morally motivated or informed sources. If you
look --even casually-- at case decisions over IP law pertaining to
software and digital data, you can see that it's all over the place.
A EULA, for example, is just so much carved smoke. It's an operational
definition of a reality that doesn't exist anywhere but in the
imagination. You can put anything you want into one defining terms and
conditions like "Thou shalt not reverse engineer this Digital Work" or
"Even though Thou hast paid Good Money for thy Software, 'Tis not thine,
Thou dost not own it nor the disc it rode in on."
If you want to use software or data that first requires your consent to
a legal agreement with clauses like that in it then you also have to
accept a certain amount of outside control over your business or
computer activity. It means I can't (legally) look into software that
will be operating in my environment to make sure there is no "phone
home" feature that reports selected information back to its maker. It
means I can't put copies of it on all my computers so that I can use
whichever one I please. It means that I agree that the vendor has a
legal right to snatch it out from under me at any time.
Since I'm a software developer myself I understand the other side of the
problem, and it is a tricky one. I wouldn't want anyone to reverse
engineer software or data that I sold ...er, /leased/ to them, but I'm
not sure that I should have any legal right to enforce that. That's one
reason why I usually include or make available source code to what I
sell. IMHO, an owner of a business (or even just a computer) has more
reasons and rights to know what's in a software package that will run
inside their domain than any vendor has for keeping them from looking.
Warren Vick
Interesting thread. However, I'd say there was a key difference between the Feist case and digital maps. Telephone numbers are inherently digital and have to be exact to have any use. Map data is a *representation* of geography which takes a degree of skill in a creative process. Conversely I'd say that the style of a map (style, labels, etc.) is difficult to protect as there are many cartographic standards and so much prior art.
As for MITAB, it's not in MapInfo's interests to kick up any fuss about this as it's in the interests of users and I'm sure any drop on the licensing of MFAL are not going to put a dent in PBBI's revenues. That said, I would not blame PBBI from being legally agitated if MITAB came from an ex-employee and was created based on knowledge obtained while under staff confidentiality.
In copyright law (which of course does vary a little from country-to-country), the hypothetical case I have always wondered about is this... I understand that there is a book available which lists pi to 1 million decimal places (some light bedtime reading, perhaps). If I wanted to create a competing book, is it legal to copy the contents from the published book on the basis that "pi is pi", or should the onus be on me to generate my own pi, even if the net result is the same. Morally, I think the latter.
Regards,
Warren Vick
Europa Technologies Ltd.
http://www.europa.uk.com
--
Bill Thoen
> But it makes me sad that so much evolves around legalities and means
> to commercialise and lock in knowledge and data. Lately I have been
> more and more interested in Open Source and Community Mapping where
> the rules aim for the opposite, to spread and make use of data and
> knowledge instead of locking it in. I think the industry would have
> more to gain if we tried to broaden our field a bit more.
and even more interesting is its economic model. I'm not sure it's a
complete solution to all the problems of commercial software, but it
does address the question of how do you protect software and data? The
FOSS answer seems to be that you don't; you instead focus on changing
the economic environment so that there is no profit motive for pirates;
i.e. you give away the source.
Because it's "free" more people are likely to try it and you develop a
user community faster. Since there are always those who want help or
additions or customization for software and data, there's a market for
consulting there too. If you are engaged in a business that requires the
use of this software or similar, you get the benefits of free outside
improvements. You can write software for business groups who all chip in
to get a good geodatabase translator, for example. You can also develop
for-profit packages with open source (as long as you stick to the rules)
and you can make money.
I'm not sure that an open source model works in all markets or that it
results in the best packages, but I've seen lots of cases where it has
produced better software that the commercial stuff. MapServer,
OpenLayers, Open Street Maps, PostGIS and PostgreSQL, the GIS file
translators GDAL and OGR, Proj4 and all the other GIS related OS
software and data are fast becoming (or already are) a viable
alternative to commercial mapping software.
(But while I do use the open source stuff for some things, I still
maintain a current license for MapInfo because it produces good maps
quickly and easily, and I've not found anything like it in the FOSS
world. )
Bill Thoen
> In copyright law (which of course does vary a little from country-to-country), the hypothetical case I have always wondered about is this... I understand that there is a book available which lists pi to 1 million decimal places (some light bedtime reading, perhaps). If I wanted to create a competing book, is it legal to copy the contents from the published book on the basis that "pi is pi", or should the onus be on me to generate my own pi, even if the net result is the same. Morally, I think the latter.
>
Oh yes. I know the one you mean. I found the sequence on page 12, right
after the ...697823... bit to be particularly thought-provoking. But
Petr Beckmann's book gives pi only to 100,265 decimal places after which
the IBM 704 doing the calculation got bored and stopped.
My guess is that if a US court uses the Feist case as a precedent, I
think it would rule in favor of the former. Also since that display was
computer generated, I bet no court in the land would decide that a
computer chundering out a sequence of digits is making a creative
expression. On top of that, no one can copyright a number, nor an
equation, which covers transcendental and irrational numbers from both
directions. But on a moral scale, your choice is the one I'd go with
too. Besides, if you copied someone else's work, you copy their
mistakes too, and you could take no pride in the work. Heck, with
today's computers you could author a whole series of sequels to "The
History of pi" like "pi After100,000 Decimal Places - The Untold Story"
or "pi to 500,000 Decimal Places - Because It's There" etc. Package
them up smartly and get the marketing team that sold the Pet Rock to
work on it and you'd probably have a best seller on your hands because
it's so weird.
Speaking of numbers, law and weird (and I'll get back on topic after
this) I read in Beckmann's book that 3 centuries ago Gottfried Leibniz
(co-inventor of the calculus and co-discoverer of the first infinite
series for calculating pi) dreamed of a world where courts were
abolished because disputes could transcribed into equations that could
be solved mathematically to fairly determine who was right or wrong and
by how much.
Now there's a refreshing new thought!