+1 to releasing around 12/10! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> Organization: Geomatys Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, November 3, 2014 at 9:16 AM To: Apache SIS <[email protected]> Subject: Report on progress: preparing OGC meeting next month, thinking about next SIS release >Hello all > >The upgrade to ISO 19115:2014 is now completed (except for the XML part) >- I do not see any additional work in this area for now. I'm now working >on a session for the next OGC meeting about this upgrade and the roadmap >for a GeoAPI release. The main point is that preserving backward >compatibility has been hard, which lead me to propose a two-step process: > > * GeoAPI 3.1 would contains only the changes that are 100% compatible > with GeoAPI 3.0. > * GeoAPI 4.0 (release date to be determined later) would add the > remaining changes. > > >On the SIS side, I was hoping that Apache SIS 0.5 would contain a more >complete referencing engine. But given that the upgrade to ISO >19115:2014 took much more time than I expected, we may consider that >this upgrade alone is worth a SIS release. Completion of the referencing >engine would be delayed to Apache SIS 0.6. If this proposal sound okay, >I would suggest a SIS 0.5 release date around December 10th. This one >month delay give us more time to test the upgraded metadata framework in >real application, and give us a chance to perform last-minute fix if the >talk at the OGC meeting shows us that we got some aspects wrong. > >What do peoples think? > > Martin >
