For a moment I thought that the axf format was the substitute for the ESRI shape file; but rather behaves like a geodatabase for ArcPad, which implies that ESRI will insist on making us suffer with the shp format.
The weaknesses of the shp format is its age, storing its tabular data in the way it was done almost 20 years without being able to establish relationships and the dispersion of small files that store the different characteristics and rules of vector data.
ESRI announced Its axf as a format to use Arcpad that from the 7.1 version can handle related tables where you can include attributes, thematization, projection and other features that the little dinorex could not do.
Although some have shouted to the sky saying "Do we need another spatial data format?", ESRI insists that it is not a new format but just as the geodatabase is a rules structure for spatial data built on Microsoft SQL Server Compact Edition (SQLCE) ... in reckless conclusion, the same geodatabase that many have criticized for having an overly stubborn API.
... may not be a new format but adds complexity to the market for geospatial products, all should now build another protocol to interact with this format.
And that is supposed to do the axf
- Collects shape files in a database, shape file attributes are stored
In a dbf... in a BLOB (Binary large object) in dbf style flat columns ... and give it with the dbf.
- Then in another table are metadata such as projection, symbology, forms and scripts.
- The collection of shapefiles, with their layers and other complements can be considered a single file.
- You can also integrate with the geodatabase, accepting domains, subtypes and relationships ... I suppose also topological rules and geoprocessing routines.
In practice, someone with a GPS can go to the field, perform a cadastral maintenance on a map (not the simple shapefile) as if it were working with its desktop platform, determining if there is topological integrity by splicing and sending the data via gsm to The central database ... you could not this? ... ah, sorry, with ArcPad!
Many believe that if ESRI insists on defending its dino-shapefile, one day the xml formats (kml, gml) will eat it alive ... it does not matter if it is married to Microsoft.