Bryce L Nordgren a écrit :
So this begs the question: what's the relationship between OGC and ISO?
The OGC has been "adopting" various ISO standards to replace the ones they
wrote themselves, but the copies on the OGC website are working drafts or
final drafts or something other than the actual final international
standard. So when differences pop up between the version that OGC is
distributing and the official ISO standard, which one is OGC-compliant? It
would seem to me that claiming ISO compliance is a far less ambiguous act.
OGC and ISO work together. I have heard that they even share some staff.
But I'm not sure that OGC has a special status at ISO. When OGC wants to
bring some changes to an OGC specification, they write a recommendation
on behaf of OGC members, but ISO has the final word (at least this is my
feeling from what I saw during the ISO 19111 revision process).
I think that OGC specifications lag behind ISO ones, but my guess is
that OGC will refresh their alignment on ISO specifications from time to
time. I think that we can try to anticipate and align on ISO when it is
useful. But for the cases where OGC is good enough, I suggest to stick
on OGC specifications for safety. This is because OGC specifications
(even ISO specifications published by OGC) are public, while ISO
specifications are usually available for a fee. Since we are releasing
an opensource software were everyone can look at the interfaces, I'm not
sure if releasing interfaces that matches closely non-published ISO
specifications may be considered equivalent to publishing them on our
own. I'm not a layer, so I can't tell.
It seems that OGC has
made a decision to adopt the ISO 191xx series of International Standards
where they coincide with OGC standards. Is this in fact the case?
In my understanding, yes.
it implies that participating in ISO is a more permanent effort, whereas
participating in OGC efforts is more of a stopgap initial effort. It also
implies that Geotools could lead more and play catch-up less were there to
be an "ISO" module whose contents would slowly migrate to "main" as various
ISO standards are accepted by the OGC.
There is an other player which may be worth to mention: GeoAPI. There is
an official "GeoAPI" working group at the OGC. A GeoAPI session (just 30
minutes) is scheduled in the next OGC meeting in Bonn (next week). We
don't have anything equivalent on the ISO side, and I don't think that
is will be possible to get an official GeoAPI-like official group at ISO.
Back to an immediate reality: How important is it that Geotools be limited
by the currently published standards, and how would you like us nD coverage
folks to keep track of the "additions"?
More we build on standard, better it is. It doesn't prevent addition.
Proposed process:
- Uses org.opengis interfaces as much as possible.
- If an addition is required, put the additional interfaces
in org.geotools namespace.
- If the addition are in phase with ISO standards, write a request for
changes for the GeoAPI working group in order to get those interfaces
added to GeoAPI. For an example, see:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=25202
- When the interfaces get added to GeoAPI, replaces the org.geotools
dependencies to org.opengis dependencies.
Martin.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
