Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Michael P. Gerlek wrote: Not all of us are interested in standards development, just as not all of us are interested in FundRaising or Metadata or... I'd much prefer to keep the main list for announcements and general topics, not specific threads. P Kishor wrote:, Might I ask, what will a separate list accomplish that posting on just the main OSGeo list won't? Standards are a sufficiently important subject that all should be concerned with it, and definitely knowledgeable about. well I see there are good reasons from all sides. I guess that for announcements there is the announcements list; IMO standards is a pretty complex thread and could cause a high traffic time to time. There are 4 OGC meeting a year, would be nice to coordinate for each meeting and give support to subscribed participants filling recommendation or whatever else. The coordination can go from a very technical level, as for each standard specification, to a very practical one (who will attend meetings, when, who can support even offering a bed, whatever...). This is the grade of coordination I dream to reach. I don't know if there is the critical mass to start such a debate but I hope it. If we are at least 10 persons interested to reach such a target, who knows when, I guess a dedicated list would be useful. Then the Wiki can be very useful too. I have to admit I still don't know which is the level of support I can give to such an initiative, I'm a lamer on many aspects about standards. Anyway I've lately spent and I'll spend a lot of time playing/developing on OGC standards in the near future and I hope to have soon a better overview of standards related issues. we can always decide it is not yet the moment to try to coordinate. Zàijiàn Lorenzo ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
dear all, On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:17:38AM -0400, P Kishor wrote: > Might I ask, what will a separate list accomplish that posting on just > the main OSGeo list won't? Standards are a sufficiently important > subject that all should be concerned with it, and definitely > knowledgeable about. At the recent EC GI-GIS workshop i enjoyed the relaxed attitude towards OGC specifications shown by members and vendors. CSW is broken in such a way, WCS is incomplete in such a way, we go back to the drawing board with tests, release a new point version. From the outside, the OGC specs look more absolute; inside, more malleable. "Standard" implies something common in use. The OGC's work on a TileCache-equivalent spec sounds as if it would benefit a lot from recognising and absorbing the work done in the open source community. The ISO is the place for "standards" and even there, a lot of TC211 look unused and unproven. http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2007-January/001734.html is the start of a long email thread "OGC Relationship" that began during uncertainty about OSGeo's role in making "specifications" such as http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Tile_Map_Service_Specification I would enjoy seeing less of this sort of thing in my inbox. Often so many words are exchanged where a set of test cases would do better. Aren't common idioms developed from what works in practise? If OSGeo "intervention" in OGC could help spread that mindset...? ;) cheers, jo ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Not all of us are interested in standards development, just as not all of us are interested in FundRaising or Metadata or... I'd much prefer to keep the main list for announcements and general topics, not specific threads. -mpg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Landon Blake > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OSGeo Discussions > Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > What if we kept the standards discussion on this general > mailing list, but set up a little page on the wiki where we > could keep some more permanent notes. > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:18 AM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > Lorenzo, > > Might I ask, what will a separate list accomplish that posting on just > the main OSGeo list won't? Standards are a sufficiently important > subject that all should be concerned with it, and definitely > knowledgeable about. > > Managing all these separate lists is becoming a pain in the derrière > for me. I would rather see and participate in the standards discussion > right here on the OSGeo discussion list. > > On 7/19/07, Lorenzo Becchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this list will be spammed > even before > > starting... ) > > > > should we proceed creating the list? > > does anyone disagree? > > > > ciao > > Lorenzo > > > > > > > > > > Frank Warmerdam wrote: > > > Michael P. Gerlek wrote: > > >> I'd not go so far as to create a list yet -- I'm not > sure we know what > > >> we're all looking for at this point. > > >> > > >> For example: do we really want "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", or > perhaps more generally > > >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? To my mind, these are two > related-but-different, > > >> and equally-interesting, ideas to explore... > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > I think it should be a "standards" list, not an OGC list, > even though > > > for practical purposes it will be mostly OGC standards. > > > > > > Best regards, > > ___ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > -- > Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ > Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ > Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ > S&T Policy Fellow, National Academy of Sciences http://www.nas.edu/ > - > collaborate, communicate, compete > = > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > Warning: > Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed > against defects including translation and transmission > errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this information in error, please notify the > sender immediately. > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
What if we kept the standards discussion on this general mailing list, but set up a little page on the wiki where we could keep some more permanent notes. The Sunburned Surveyor -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:18 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development Lorenzo, Might I ask, what will a separate list accomplish that posting on just the main OSGeo list won't? Standards are a sufficiently important subject that all should be concerned with it, and definitely knowledgeable about. Managing all these separate lists is becoming a pain in the derrière for me. I would rather see and participate in the standards discussion right here on the OSGeo discussion list. On 7/19/07, Lorenzo Becchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this list will be spammed even before > starting... ) > > should we proceed creating the list? > does anyone disagree? > > ciao > Lorenzo > > > > > Frank Warmerdam wrote: > > Michael P. Gerlek wrote: > >> I'd not go so far as to create a list yet -- I'm not sure we know what > >> we're all looking for at this point. > >> > >> For example: do we really want "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", or perhaps more > >> generally > >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? To my mind, these are two related-but-different, > >> and equally-interesting, ideas to explore... > > > > Michael, > > > > I think it should be a "standards" list, not an OGC list, even though > > for practical purposes it will be mostly OGC standards. > > > > Best regards, > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ S&T Policy Fellow, National Academy of Sciences http://www.nas.edu/ - collaborate, communicate, compete = ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Lorenzo, Might I ask, what will a separate list accomplish that posting on just the main OSGeo list won't? Standards are a sufficiently important subject that all should be concerned with it, and definitely knowledgeable about. Managing all these separate lists is becoming a pain in the derrière for me. I would rather see and participate in the standards discussion right here on the OSGeo discussion list. On 7/19/07, Lorenzo Becchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this list will be spammed even before starting... ) should we proceed creating the list? does anyone disagree? ciao Lorenzo Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Michael P. Gerlek wrote: >> I'd not go so far as to create a list yet -- I'm not sure we know what >> we're all looking for at this point. >> >> For example: do we really want "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", or perhaps more generally >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? To my mind, these are two related-but-different, >> and equally-interesting, ideas to explore... > > Michael, > > I think it should be a "standards" list, not an OGC list, even though > for practical purposes it will be mostly OGC standards. > > Best regards, ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ S&T Policy Fellow, National Academy of Sciences http://www.nas.edu/ - collaborate, communicate, compete = ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
I agree on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this list will be spammed even before starting... ) should we proceed creating the list? does anyone disagree? ciao Lorenzo Frank Warmerdam wrote: Michael P. Gerlek wrote: I'd not go so far as to create a list yet -- I'm not sure we know what we're all looking for at this point. For example: do we really want "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", or perhaps more generally "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? To my mind, these are two related-but-different, and equally-interesting, ideas to explore... Michael, I think it should be a "standards" list, not an OGC list, even though for practical purposes it will be mostly OGC standards. Best regards, ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
