dear all, On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:17:38AM -0400, P Kishor wrote: > Might I ask, what will a separate list accomplish that posting on just > the main OSGeo list won't? Standards are a sufficiently important > subject that all should be concerned with it, and definitely > knowledgeable about.
At the recent EC GI-GIS workshop i enjoyed the relaxed attitude towards OGC specifications shown by members and vendors. CSW is broken in such a way, WCS is incomplete in such a way, we go back to the drawing board with tests, release a new point version. From the outside, the OGC specs look more absolute; inside, more malleable. "Standard" implies something common in use. The OGC's work on a TileCache-equivalent spec sounds as if it would benefit a lot from recognising and absorbing the work done in the open source community. The ISO is the place for "standards" and even there, a lot of TC211 look unused and unproven. http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2007-January/001734.html is the start of a long email thread "OGC Relationship" that began during uncertainty about OSGeo's role in making "specifications" such as http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Tile_Map_Service_Specification I would enjoy seeing less of this sort of thing in my inbox. Often so many words are exchanged where a set of test cases would do better. Aren't common idioms developed from what works in practise? If OSGeo "intervention" in OGC could help spread that mindset...? ;) cheers, jo _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
