On 5/10/13 12:25 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Adrian Custer wrote:
On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
Hey Cameron, all,
...
* The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
alternative way forwards.
I
On 10 May 2013 18:40, Adrian Custer acus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/10/13 12:25 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Adrian Custer wrote:
On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
Hey Cameron, all,
...
* The letter is only rejection of the
While KML ESRI Restful are two cases of OGC potentially ratifying a non-OGC
developed standard, and the situations worth comparing, I think there are two
important differences. At least as I understand the situation.
1. KML was already open, widely used supported by multiple
Hey Cameron, all,
Cameron, you recently asked me to join your letter from the OSGeo to the
OGC Members regarding the adoption of the proposed ESRI GeoServices
REST API as an OGC standard.
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Geoservices_REST_API#Open_Letter_to_OGC_and_voting_members
Thanks. Your
On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
Hey Cameron, all,
...
* The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
alternative way forwards.
I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
On 05/09/2013 07:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
Hey Cameron, all,
...
* The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
alternative way forwards.
I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
Thanks Adrian for your email with your reasoned explanation. It's not often
people take the time to provide such a thorough analysis.
On May 9, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Adrian Custer acus...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer
Adrian,
Thanks for the in depth review. I admit I haven't read the document over
thoroughly but even without doing so there are some obvious concerns.
From a user perspective (my user), this appears to be a push to get
their way of doing things stamped as a standard so they can let their
Adrian,
This is an exceptionally well written letter, which I believes captures
what many of us in the OSGeo Community would like to say.
You have provided an eloquent, unbiased, concise summary of the issues,
covering the key technical issues. If an OGC voter only had time to read
one thing
