Personal opinion in a nutshell:
From an OGC perspective: (yes I'm a member via NIWA's affiliation - once I pay
the current bill :-)
This is not a genuine attempt to improve interoperability support open
standards, it is an attempt to undermine open standards replace
existing open standards
I think we must review how openoffice become iso standared, and microsoft
that behave like esri, want new standard called msoffoce xml.
He submit his docx, xlsx, etc, which he said better and more complete, but
anyone adopt.
For respect, i hope we can follow this model. Esri no need standard, or
Hello,
I've made a brief summary of this thread and sent it to the Spanish
Local Chapter mailing list linking specially the mail from Cameron[1]
that started the conversation.
I've tried to encourage them to participate in the debate, right now
we are receiving some responses, in spanish in the
On 7 May 2013 08:58, Pedro-Juan Ferrer Matoses pfer...@osgeo.org wrote:
Hello,
I've made a brief summary of this thread and sent it to the Spanish
Local Chapter mailing list linking specially the mail from Cameron[1]
that started the conversation.
I've tried to encourage them to participate
All,
Having read this thread I support what has been said by Adrian, Bruce and
others. If anything, acceptance of a set of standards that basically replicates
what W*S standards already do will confuse customers. Maybe that is exactly
what esri hopes to achieve, it definitely doesn't help our
Adrian sums up the problems and the discussions that were happening
really well. I fully agree with the problems that arise.
I just want to add that from my perspective this isn't an anti-ESRI
campaign from some OSGeo fellows, but it's against one company pushing
something through the OGC that
I am also of the opinion that single-vendor standards such as KML and
this GeoServices REST API are turning OGC into a rubber-stamping
organization and this is not what the geospatial community needs. Don't
get me wrong, it is good to see these openly published, but the
publication should be
All,
I'm pretty much in the same camp as Jeroen has described below.
The original advertised capabilities from OGC were to develop a set of common
and documented standards that could be used as interoperable building blocks.
It was supposed to be a nice and easy way to say that I, (or we) as
The part that bothers me the most about this has to do with the big
picture. I'm concerned that if we focus on this or that standard without
putting it into the larger context that poor(bad?) decisions are getting
made that set precedents for more bad decisions to follow.
This had been
All,
I've followed this thread with interest, thanks for the insightful
discussion.
If I can spare my 2 cents, is that the OGC specifications are complex
enough already, with differences in behavior in the various versions, that
adding another set of competing standards is just going to increase
All,
being involved in both communities I read this thread with high
interest. I agree with the issues raised by Bruce, Jeroen, Daniel, etc.
I guess my main issue is adding a competing set of standards within OGC
without proper justification and thus weakening the overall position of OGC.
cu
On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:24:05 +0200
Stephan Meißl step...@meissl.name wrote:
All,
being involved in both communities I read this thread with high
interest. I agree with the issues raised by Bruce, Jeroen, Daniel,
etc. I guess my main issue is adding a competing set of standards
within OGC
Hi all,
I agree with Andrea. In my opinion OGC should be building upon the WxS
specifications, introducing REST and JSON with a round of new major
versions.
It was already tough for us to explain WxS services to end users for the
last 10 years. Adding new service specifications will not help
Hey Ann, all,
On 5/6/13 5:48 PM, Anne Ghisla wrote:
Stephan, Adrian: is there an effective way for OSGeo to address a
statement to OGC, beside the official requests for comments and our
Discuss list?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Anne
Any official statement issued by the OSGeo Board or community
Le dimanche 05 mai 2013 01:05:22, Adrian Custer a écrit :
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.
Cameron,
My personal opinion is that if this proposal was accepted, it would be a bad
move for OGC.
Remember that OGC is a community and its Technical Committee membership are the
people who vote on the acceptance of Standards. The TC comprises many different
organisations.
I do understand
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
29 matches
Mail list logo