OSGeo Community,
Currently, voting OGC members are to decide whether to accept the
GeoServices REST API as an OGC standard. This is already a contentious
issue, with 13 votes for, and 10 votes against, 72 outstanding votes,
with voting halted temporally, being reopened again in a few days,
Hi cameron
I think ogc is stand as standard body which will home as geoservices
Yes, there are several overlap
I prefer esri to certified his product withnogc rather make new standarsd
in ogc
That is dangerous to community
On May 4, 2013 5:46 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Cameron Shorter
cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wanting to hear whether people in the OSGeo community have strong
opinions regarding this proposed standard, and whether we as a
collective OSGeo community should make statements to the OGC, and voting
OGC
Dear Cameron, all,
There is indeed a massive conflict at the OGC related to this proposed
standard and it may be useful to inform this list about that conflict
and the process.
However, I am unsure how expanding the *discussion* here helps.
The proposed standard aims to document a
Il 04/05/2013 18:43, Adrian Custer ha scritto:
Which brings us to OSGeo and what useful contribution it could make to
the debate. Simply rehashing the issues above is not going to be useful
to anyone. If new ideas arise, or a large, common position emerges on
the issue, I'd be glad to inject
Hey Barry,
There is no useful concept of a 'reference implementation' at the OGC.
The things the OGC calls 'reference implementation' are actually
example testing implementations. The word was incorrectly adopted by
the testing group (pushed by those with commercial concerns). The
testing
Is there an open-source reference implementation of code to work with
every aspect of the KML file standard? The situation seems analagous -
a proprietary standard pushed to OGC and opened up.
https://code.google.com/p/libkml/
___
Discuss mailing
Note that Cameron was either unclear or incorrect in his presentation of
where the standard now stands.
* The document was released for public comment. (see above)
* A response to all the comments was issued. (however incomplete)
Adrian,
Do you have by chance a link to the response to
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Adrian Custer acus...@gmail.com wrote:
The dominance of ESRI is controversial both because the working mode
lacked any collaborative spirit and, perhaps most critically, because
this is seen as a way through which ESRI can bring its own service onto an
equal
Adrian,
Thankyou, I was hoping that someone such as your self with insights into
the standard would explain the details. You email has been a great help.
I'm also hoping that someone will provide a more detailed comparison of
the similarities / differences, to help the rest of the community
On 5/4/13 6:06 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Thanks for the background Adrian, do we know of any other parties with
implementation plans?
--
Jody Garnett
The known implementations are listed in the document responding to the
'no' vote. I won't list them here 'till I hear back on the status of
On 5/4/13 6:21 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Adrian,
Thankyou, I was hoping that someone such as your self with insights into
the standard would explain the details. You email has been a great help.
Cheers.
I'm also hoping that someone will provide a more detailed comparison of
the
TC Haddad wrote:
-
To elaborate on the unequal footing phrase above:
One additional aspect of the government side of this equation is that
for several years there has been a trend (similar to Microsoft
products) in getting the ESRI architecture adopted as a GIS software
standard within
13 matches
Mail list logo
