Latest Contributions by TimMinter

Thanks Jeremy, good info. I never thought to myself, "Self... the Mac is Ed."  Not sure why this info didn't float up high when asking Google questions about ArcGIS on OS X with Fusion and/or Bootcamp. ... View more

Oh, this makes me yearn for the days of learning, enlightenment, and user-driven models at university! Things can be a bit different in centrally managed, firmly secured environments.  The IT hardware and software resources here are configured to adhere to laws, align with administrative policies, and enable staff to perform their duties, which creates a narrower solution field hemmed in by more constraints. Your point is well taken, and it presents an approach for which I advocate regularly. ... View more

I'm working on your item #3 for my own needs.  I thought I would configure the template app in AGO, then figure out how to snag the default.js file and grab the config settings from it (Google Chrome F12 tool).  haven't figured it out yet, but I only spent about 20 minutes after reading the instructions before I ran out of time.  Maybe more later. ... View more

you flatter me .  go on, do it some more!  yea, verily, feel free to take.  it's like an old leather couch on the side of the road, "free take" ... View more

edit:  hmm.  maybe the geonet advanced editor isn't in production yet.  it seems to have removed many words up front... edit 2:  many words abandoned in favor of deploying another system to production. ---------------- excellent question...  So far, what we've made up goes somewhat like this: Bases The IT-centric information delivery context continuum extends from long-term operational phase, fiercely controlled systems to ephemeral mechanisms.  "Production" has to be relative to the requirements of the system within its information delivery context along that continuum.  (this statement is totally up for negation, refinement, adjustment, etc.  it stems from our recognition that biz & tech changes are spinning faster and faster) Esri provides AGO as a service to its paying customers.  We pay money to receive the service under a defined service level agreement.  That service level agreement defines and constrains what we can define as "production" when using that service.  e.g. we cannot refuse or delay a change to specific AGO features that may create changes for our system. "Map" in the AGO environment means a set of resources and configuration settings delivered in JSON format and renderable as a visual re-presentation that we have come to perceive as a spatial and/or geospatial re-presentation of real or imaginary objects (careful, don't look too far down here...  there's quantum foam somewhere below us ) "Production" means that the map owners have generally agreed not to change it without coordinating the change with stakeholders who have made their needs known When is an AGO map in production? when its referenced resources are in production (e.g. the basemap, the operational layers, the ancillary layers, etc.) if we control the resources, then we can enforce this definition as fiercely as we need to (e.g. a map that certain staff use to change the operational status of one or more offices) if we don't control the resources, then we have decided that the benefit of using them outweighs the cost and risk of having to react to sudden changes (e.g. a map that emergency managers use to form an operational picture in relation to emergent hazards such as wildfires.  Our organization does not map wildfires, but we need them from an organization that does.  we have no control over the changes that are made to the wildfire service other than maybe voicing a feeble "hey" when a change occurs that messes us up.) when it has an assigned go-to person - an author - someone to serve the needs of stakeholders with whom an agreement has been made to manage change requirements. when that author has met certain requirements that we have established (e.g. complete FGDC CSDGM metadata for all of the data sources that our organization owns, complete map item description elements we identified) when the map has been completed based on functional and non-functional requirements (e.g. the operational layers support editor tracking in an enterprise geodatabase;  the map resources, configuration, and access exposure meet information security requirements) After all that digital wind, here's a simple example of a web map that we have said is in production: http://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/73ffa1b71a654ffe8e31a604cce98cc0?f=pjson BTW - this is a great discussion topic you've raised. tim ... View more

Mr. Crandall! We're defining on the fly as needs arise based on some simple principles: minimize moving parts and things to maintain - e.g. if we can get away with a "dev/test" environment instead of a "dev" and a "test" environment, then we do. enable self service for content contributors - this means that a contributor can have full ownership and control over their items in all environments.  they also have full responsibility for meeting quality and availability requirements. establish the opportunity for content consumers to form specific expectations of the content based on which environment they are using - in AGO, this means that we leave notes in the item description regarding availability, support, etc. The different environments lend themselves to different service level agreements among different customer segments.  Each may or may not need to be publicly available.  So, "production" has the highest, firmest, bestest SLA for its intended consumers, while the "sandbox" environment's only guarantee is that it will be a mess when and if it's available.  So far, we have implemented these approaches: Open Data site:  create sandbox, development/test, and production OD sites.  Link to the prod OD site from the other environments and explain up front that the consumer does not want to be there.  Each site has its relative OD group and relative OD items.  So, when we're updating an item in prod, we do it in dev/test first, then test it until success, then do it in prod, test until success, and call it done.  two are exposed at the moment: prod:  http://gdl.wadshs.opendata.arcgis.com/ dev/test:  http://gdldev.wadshs.opendata.arcgis.com/ AGO data library:  access is only internal to our subscription, and we've created dev/test and prod groups and items. content contributors - typically we recommend that they utilize a content folder structure that mimics the targets (e.g. OD or data library) and environment(s).  So, folders for "OD dev/test" and "OD prod" items. Also, an approach that we've seen others using, but haven't used ourselves yet is to purchase multiple AGO subscriptions.  Based on your description of taking ownership, you might consider a large AGO subscription (100?) for content contributors and a small (5?) subscription for a centrally managed "production" environment. happy Tuesday, tim ... View more

Hi Courtney, Good info, thank you.  I've been using our Open Data group description to communicate information about group usage to content contributors.  I'll think about how to provide useful information to Open Data consumers in the Group description and adjust from there. This made me think a bit more (uh oh)...  I would find it quite useful if the Esri Open Data team could provide a reference Open Data site demonstrating all Open Data capabilities and configured per best practices according to the Open Data design, then link to it from the instructions.  I could use that as an example when configuring our own sites.  Happy Wednesday, tim ... View more

I'd like to see improvement in ArcGIS Online and Open Data providing full support for and integration with the geodatabase structure.  That would be sweet . There are a lot of variations at present on which geodatabase data types can be ingested into ArcGIS Online, then fully used by ArcGIS Online apps, app templates, app builders, app studios, and Open Data capabilities.  Deficiencies I have experienced and investigated recently are: Subtypes and domains Many-to-many relationship classes Metadata My story: As a data manager for an organization with open data sharing obligations, I need to upload our geodatabase structure to ArcGIS Online and share it via Open Data in a way that respects and fully utilizes the on-premise source geodatabase structure so that I can meet our obligation to share our data with a minimum of effort, thus allowing me to focus more time and effort on core business activities. Two recent experiences, not going into detail or completeness here: upload fGDB to AGO, specify to publish a feature service.  The feature service is published, but an awful lot of fGDB parts are stripped out.  Download the the fGDB and discover that the parts really are gone.  It's not just that the service ignored the parts.  It appears that the parts aren't there. publish geodatabase-sourced layer from ArcMap or ArcGIS Pro 1.1 to AGO, specify feature service.  ArcMap 10.3.1 is the only version that gets subtypes and domains right in the resulting service.  cool.  However, now the default map viewer table tool and Open Data don't understand the subtypes and domains.  Interestingly, the default map viewer popup gets it and presents results properly. I've noticed some mis-representation around values stored in date fields when using hosted feature services as a source.  I have not investigated, but my immediate suspicions point toward the possibility that some SQL Server queries might be experiencing the time data rounding issue. ... View more

Hi Katie Cullen, GeoNet apparently wants you to be my Friend or to follow me so that I can message you.  Alternatively, I could take a guess at your email and see what happens... You can only send messages to your Friends / Connections (people following you). tim ... View more

Hi Katie, Thanks for offering to have a look.  I'll mess with a backup tomorrow morning and get with you on transferring. tim ... View more

Findings:  AGO & OD do not appear to support geodatabase subtypes today. Results:  Devise alternate plan. Hopefully talking myself through this problem out loud in GeoNet helps others get where you're going or avoid burning time tracing my steps to failure.  Click a "Helpful" button if it was. ----------------- Edit 7/31/2015:  More details - Esri staff have contacted me to review the errors I'm experiencing.  We have identified the ArcGIS Online default map viewer table tool and the Open Data table tab as presenting incorrect data when using services that have my source geodatabase feature class, domains, and subtypes in them.  The ArcGIS Online default map viewer popup presents the correct information under these conditions.  The development teams for both have been notified. ... View more

Results:  ArcGIS Server site + Open Data as usual, followed the instructions for doing this. Did not register the enterprise geodatabase with the ArcGIS Server site in order to force conversion to a file geodatabase managed by ArcGIS Server.  Hopefully this somewhat mimics the workflow from eGDB to feature layer (hosted). Published with map service capability only, with data copied to the server. AGO added the locally managed map service as a "Map Image Layer" item, then added to new map and investigated.  popups work properly, all the way around (wee progress , suggests a valid geodatabase), the table does not respect the fields with domains relative to subtypes as in the last try.  hmm. AGO added the locally managed map service as a "Feature Service" item (just added "/0" to the URL to grab the only layer in the map service).  popups work just fine again, all proper.  The table remains confused by subtypes. OD is taking a long time to realize that both of the items have been shared to it, even with "Update Index" prodding.  I need a "Patience" button...  twiddle thumbs...  ok, I'm back.  OD recognized both items after awhile.  OD table remains confused by the subtype for both the map service and feature service items. ArcGIS Server appears to have sufficient geodatabase support to deliver the data respecting the subtypes.  The AGO default map app popup code supports subtypes, but its table viewer code does not.  The OD table viewer code does not support subtypes. That's a wrap.  I think I'll just skip to the alternate plan step. ... View more

SQL Server queries can return unexpected and undesired date rounding.  This might be what's happening between ArcGIS Server and SQL Server, and you might want to pursue this possibility. ... View more