I mentioned GeoAPI a couple of times as an example of a "bridge" between
open source software and the OGC / ISO standards process. I passed on an
informal report we got in our IRC meeting on Monday, here is an update
we got today.
Have a read of this email; and think if this level of involvement will
be enough for us. It may be easier then setting up a formal arrangement
- it has the strength of OSGeo making contributions in a format we do
well (ie code) and OGC making contributions in a format they do well (ie
large pdf documents and xml schema). Also note that the GeoAPI project
is not limited to Java projects.
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
Hello all
Sorry for being late, I have been in a rush for the past few days.
There is a quite report about what happened at OGC meeting, and what could be
our road map if peoples agree (at the very end of this email). First, a quick
reminder of GeoAPI history:
* At some point in the past, the OGC 01-009 implementation specification
("Coordinate Transformation Service Implementation Specification") was
accompanied by a set of Java interfaces created by the OGC 01-009
authors. Those interfaces were defined in the "org.opengis.cs",
"org.opengis.ct" and "org.opengis.pt" packages.
* An independent contributor offered in 2001 additional Java interfaces
in the "org.opengis.cv", "org.opengis.gc" and "org.opengis.gp" packages
derived from OGC 01-004 ("Grid Coverage Service Implementation
Specification").
* GeoAPI has been created in 2002 by James McGill in an effort to bring
some open source projects (especially Geotools and Jump) to a common
set of interfaces. While we used OGC interfaces (GeoAPI 1.0 was just
a packaging of the above-cited org.opengis cs, ct, pt, cv, gc and gp
packages), the GeoAPI project was formally independent from OGC.
* About at the same time, a OGC working group, namely GO-1, had similar
goals. The OGC GO-1 working group (leads by Polexis) was in touch with
the GeoAPI community. In June 2004, we formally merged the projects. We
wrote a charter (link below) and got it approved by a OGC vote, as OGC
document 04-059.
http://geoapi.sourceforge.net/stable/site/charter.html
* The join effort between OGC GO-1 working group and GeoAPI community
resulted in a rewrite of the referencing interfaces (for alignment
with ISO 19111) and addition of geometry interfaces (ISO 19107).
* GO-1 final (OGC 03-064r10) has been released almost one year later
(May 4th, 2005) and approved as a OGC implementation specification.
GeoAPI 2.0 has been released slightly after GO-1 (June 7th, 2005)
in order to reflect the GO-1 state. Many GeoAPI 2.0 interfaces are
explained in this OGC 03-064r10 document.
* Polexis (now SYS Technologies) seems to have disengaged from GO-1/GeoAPI.
I'm not aware of any progress in the GO-1 project since the OGC 03-064r10
release in 2005. Consequently, GeoAPI lost its representative at OGC.
* GeoAPI work continued, thanks to the GeoAPI community, but we were
failing to report our progress at OGC. I did some attempts to bring
"GeoAPI request for changes" at OGC in 2006, but failed either because
the document was not posted on the OGC web site (none of us were OGC
members), or because I was not able to attend to the OGC meetings.
* At the OGC technical meeting at Edinburgh (June 30, 2006), OGC members
voted the dissolution of GeoAPI working group on the basis that it was
inactive. It was not a move against GeoAPI itself, just the normal
procedure for a group that didn't reported any progress for 2 years.
Maybe the apparent absence of activity was caused by the OGC's GeoAPI
mailing list being totally silent; not all OGC members were aware that
all our discussion happen on the SoureForge mailing list.
* None of us in the GeoAPI community were aware of this dissolution. I
learned this fact only in May 2007 from an other OGC member (Spot Image).
I wrote to the OGC director and we decided (on his recommendation) to
submit the GeoAPI request for changes at OGC anyway. We got a two hours
slot on Monday, and Adrian explained the GeoAPI context to the members
present. I presented the Request For Changes after that.
* It was not possible to get a vote on the Request For Changes because
the GeoAPI working group was not existent anymore. However we got a
vote on the following motion:
"The GeoAPI ad-hoc meeting proposes to the Open GIS Consortium
Technical Committee to establish a GeoAPI Standards Working Group
to revisit and revise the GeoAPI interfaces which expand the GO-1
Implementation Specification (which is the OGC approved GeoAPI
Implementation specification)."
Moved by Martin Desruisseaux
Seconded by Ron Lake
* In order to form such a working group, we need at least 5 OGC members.
Adrian and myself will be on this group. We need 3 additional members.
Jody, is Refraction Research an OGC member? If yes would you like to
be on this group? I don't think that it would involve much additional
work compared to your current GeoAPI involvement, but it would make
your involvement visible to OGC. If Stephane Nicoll accepts to be on
this group too, it would be very nice.
* After some informal discussion between Adrian and Carl Reed, we are
going toward the following proposal:
- Forget about GO-1.
- As a working group, our task would be to produce a brand
new specification. I suggest to call this new specification
"GeoAPI 3.0".
- Since we would start on new grounds, we have some freedom
for cleaning some pending issues in GeoAPI. We are not too
tied by the past. However I suggest to continue what we
already do ("deprecate, then delete" cycle, document changes
in RFC document when we can) as a respect for our users.
- We could make GeoAPI 2.1, 2.2, etc. releases on our own as a
transition toward GeoAPI 3.0, but we should make it very clear
that they are not official OGC specifications. Only GeoAPI 2.0
was and GeoAPI 3.0 would be, if approved by OGC members.
Any comments, discussion, objections? Any volunteer for being member of OGC
working group? I suggest that OGC members continue the discussion on the usual
SourceForge mailing list (no secret mailing list).
Martin
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
