Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Standards] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot
+ 1/2 I agree with much of Arnulf's commentary, and as an OSGEO member who did sign the letter, my reasons were not primarily philosophical or technical, but political. Heavy sigh :-) For some years I have been working towards data sharing interoperability between a wide range of national international environmental agencies. OGC compliant has become a catchword representing the progress we have made, mostly using WMS, WFS, CSW SOS. From my perspective, introducing a standard that enabled OGC compliance but failed to provide the interoperability was a retrogade step - irrespective of technical merits. I admit this is only one perspective others may feel differently but it was my primary motivation. I have no doubt that giving the FOSS GIS community open access to ESRI protocols would indeed give the FOSS community a situation they would successfully take advantage of, but I believe there is a better way forward, hopefully we are heading there. I don't know how much the open source input had to do with ESRI withdrawing. I don't really care why ESRI does what it does, I do care about what my community does, I'm very pleased with the result. I think one longer term outcome will be a better RESTful API, that is perhaps largely ESRI compatible, but addresses some of the technical issues that have been mentioned. I believe that both OSGEO OGC have represented the majority of their stakeholders well, and have made considered decisions that lead forward. Robust (rather than acrimonious or self righteous) debate is the best way for communities to determine the best way forward, I'd say the vast majority of the commentary I've followed has been robust rational, which is very positive. From a cynical perspective, for what is basically a group of committees, the issue outcome have been remarkably open, widely discussed by well informed experts, have resulted in what I think is a sensible decision. What more can be asked of a committee? Congratulations to all those who participated!! Brent Wood --- On Thu, 6/6/13, Baumann, Peter p.baum...@jacobs-university.de wrote: From: Baumann, Peter p.baum...@jacobs-university.de Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Standards] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot To: Seven (aka Arnulf) se...@arnulf.us, OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org, standa...@lists.osgeo.org standa...@lists.osgeo.org Date: Thursday, June 6, 2013, 2:32 AM +1, a very balanced viewpoint indeed! -Peter -- Dr. Peter Baumann - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) http://www.rasdaman.com, mail:baum...@rasdaman.com tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata. (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) From: standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Seven (aka Arnulf) [se...@arnulf.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:56 PM To: OSGeo Discussions; standa...@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [OSGeo-Discuss] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, lets not get carried away. The decision esri took depended on many factors and I have a hard time mapping it directly and exclusively to the engagement of open sauce (fudzilla original) developers. Don't get me wrong, I think the initiative by OSGeo showed that we are functioning nicely and that we have our act together (I say we although I did not sign the submitted paper). But to say that esri took the decision to withdraw the standard proposal because of Open Source is simply not justified. There was a long debate and discussions and even some dialog on all levels inside and outside of the OGC by many members and externals for two years! It was a good discussion and everybody involved learned a lot. The OGC showed its willingness to change and open their processes to better fit the way things evolve these days. This is ongoing. Yes, there was also input from OSGeo but in my opinion pretty late in the game. We (at least on this list) have known of this effort by esri since June 2011 two years ago: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2012-July/000456.html (thanks to Bart) We were reminded several times, for example in July 2012 by Volker: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2012-July/000456.html ...plus there were several posts from the OGC in their regular channels for those who care. Has the standard been removed for technical reasons? I think not. It was because of a backlash of the broader
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Standards] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot
Arnulf, Yes, the news articles focus of Open Source beats big bad vendor failed to mention all the hard lobbying from a number of OGC members and I was a little embarrassed that the article over-emphasised my involvement. However, one thing that I think the OGC can learn is that the reasons ESRI gave for withdrawing were all raised earlier (as you mention) and were discounted. It was only after intense lobbying at the 11th hour (of which OSGeo was a part) that ESRI finally actioned community concern. On 6/06/2013 5:38 PM, pcr...@pcreso.com wrote: + 1/2 I agree with much of Arnulf's commentary, and as an OSGEO member who did sign the letter, my reasons were not primarily philosophical or technical, but political. Heavy sigh :-) For some years I have been working towards data sharing interoperability between a wide range of national international environmental agencies. OGC compliant has become a catchword representing the progress we have made, mostly using WMS, WFS, CSW SOS. From my perspective, introducing a standard that enabled OGC compliance but failed to provide the interoperability was a retrogade step - irrespective of technical merits. I admit this is only one perspective others may feel differently but it was my primary motivation. I have no doubt that giving the FOSS GIS community open access to ESRI protocols would indeed give the FOSS community a situation they would successfully take advantage of, but I believe there is a better way forward, hopefully we are heading there. I don't know how much the open source input had to do with ESRI withdrawing. I don't really care why ESRI does what it does, I do care about what my community does, I'm very pleased with the result. I think one longer term outcome will be a better RESTful API, that is perhaps largely ESRI compatible, but addresses some of the technical issues that have been mentioned. I believe that both OSGEO OGC have represented the majority of their stakeholders well, and have made considered decisions that lead forward. Robust (rather than acrimonious or self righteous) debate is the best way for communities to determine the best way forward, I'd say the vast majority of the commentary I've followed has been robust rational, which is very positive. From a cynical perspective, for what is basically a group of committees, the issue outcome have been remarkably open, widely discussed by well informed experts, have resulted in what I think is a sensible decision. What more can be asked of a committee? Congratulations to all those who participated!! Brent Wood --- On *Thu, 6/6/13, Baumann, Peter /p.baum...@jacobs-university.de/* wrote: From: Baumann, Peter p.baum...@jacobs-university.de Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Standards] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot To: Seven (aka Arnulf) se...@arnulf.us, OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org, standa...@lists.osgeo.org standa...@lists.osgeo.org Date: Thursday, June 6, 2013, 2:32 AM +1, a very balanced viewpoint indeed! -Peter -- Dr. Peter Baumann - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de /mc/compose?to=p.baum...@jacobs-university.de tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) http://www.rasdaman.com, mail:baum...@rasdaman.com /mc/compose?to=baum...@rasdaman.com tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata. (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) From: standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org /mc/compose?to=standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org /mc/compose?to=standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Seven (aka Arnulf) [se...@arnulf.us /mc/compose?to=se...@arnulf.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:56 PM To: OSGeo Discussions; standa...@lists.osgeo.org /mc/compose?to=standa...@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [OSGeo-Discuss] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, lets not get carried away. The decision esri took depended on many factors and I have a hard time mapping it directly and exclusively to the engagement of open sauce (fudzilla original) developers. Don't get me wrong, I think the initiative by OSGeo showed that we are functioning nicely and that we have our act together (I say we although I did not sign the submitted paper). But to say that esri took the decision to withdraw the standard
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Standards] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot
I tend to disagree. The ESRI specification is technologically lagging behind about 10 years. Imposing it on the open standards community would have been a major step back. cheers, Peter From: standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [standards-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of xavier lhomme [lhomme.xav...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:51 AM To: Seven (aka Arnulf) Cc: OSGeo Discussions; Standards, (OSGeo) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [OSGeo-Discuss] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot I do not really understand why this sling came from OSGeo. Indeed, OSGeo includes many talents who have expressed their arguments. But among these good arguments, came to add a political position with the main argument, the ESRI dominant position against other industrial players. I wondered if some members have not expressed through OSGeo to defend their own business, or as we saw later to take more power to the OGC. If MapServer and GeoServer implement the GeoRest Services (with possibly a GeoJSON output too), many companies would have benefited. Today MapServer and GeoServer implements their own REST API and OSM already has already one. The OGC stays with their own Web Services specification not really used (unless WMS) , difficult to understand and with implementations not always complete. Finally, I am afraid that everyone loses, the OGC who are losing influence, an increase of protocols, a decrease of system interoperability. xl ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Standards] Geoservices REST API story is being discussed on slashdot
Thanks Arnulf.
Regarding this last important comment, the GeoServices interface is already
an open specification [1] that was submitted to the OpenWebFoundation (OWF)
[2] to ensure non-proprietary use.
Indeed there is a huge opportunity to provide easy to use and flexible
tools that talk to the numerous servers out there. Ideally any user or
developer of the popular open-source tools should be agnostic and unaware
of the details of the underlying specification or format. They just want
their data in a {map,analysis,report,app}.
While I was not a part of the OGC working group in any way - I have been in
discussions on how to jumpstart any kind of real REST specification for
years and finally gave up. :) I hope that path still happens in some way
and includes full bidirectional support for any service.
Andrew
[1] GeoServices Specification 1.0 (2010):
http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/geoservices-rest-spec.pdf
[2] OpenWeb Foundation Agreement:
http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/users-of-owf-agreements
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) se...@arnulf.us wrote:
I am still not convinced that the result of this standard would have
been detrimental to Open Source. How that? There is a good chance that
it would have opened up all current esri clients for Open Source code
because the proposed standard goes right into the underwear of esri's
ArcGIS. Having the specification in the OGC would have guaranteed that
it would not be dropped or changed in a proprietary whim. Every single
esri client would have had the chance to get some Open Source pieces
into their game, be it on the client or the server side. Then learn
that it is more stable, evolves quicker and can replace the other esri
stuff over time. Simple as that.
Chance passed, but no problem, we'll get another one.
--
Andrew Turner
t: @ajturner
b: http://highearthorbit.com
m: 248.982.3609
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
