RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
A few more things: I had a good chat w/ Sam B. from OGC tonight here at GeoWeb: they are very sincere in their desire to find some means by which OGC and OSGeo can work together, and are moving in the right direction for this. Maybe not as fast as all of us would like or in exactly the right direction, but the effort is being made, they do want to engage with us. Raj will be key here, I think, as would a meeting of the minds in Victoria. We (Sam and I) also seem to agree that OSGeo makes a good environment for prototype / reference implementation work (or perhaps interop, as Allan discusses below). Chris Holmes and TOPP are leading the way on this one. Another issue that I've been thinking about is "the right to fork". Let's say we have a model whereby a "specification" developed by OSGeo-type folks goes into the OGC process to become a "formal" spec (whatever that means). Let's further hypothesize that the OGC members later on make a change to that spec in a way that the original OSGeo authors disagree with, or, equivalently, that the original OSGeo authors wish to make a change to the spec that OGC is unwilling to ratify. Obviously we'd want to work this out amicably if at all possible -- but in the worst case OGC would need to agree to have a non-exclusive license to the spec work (whatever that means), such that it could be "forked" by any disaffected parties at any time... This is, of course, the normal open source development practice and philosophy. Sam (unofficially) seemed to feel this was not unreasonable. I don't know what our policy is, but to prevent boring anyone on this topic I'll just move for the creation of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Rough charter: "This is a discussion list for topics having to do with creation of standards, specifications, and related beasties within the OSGeo ecosystem. This includes, but is not limited to, discussions of how to best work with OGC and other such bodies. Note that discussions about issues specific to a given standard or spec, e.g. should it be lat/long or long/lat, should be held on some other mailing list about that standard or spec; this mailing list is more for meta level issues." Do I hear a second? -mpg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allan Doyle > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:25 PM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > > On Jul 26, 2007, at 18:08 , Michael P. Gerlek wrote: > > > Sean has a good point: some of the OGC specs have been developed > > with relatively few members in the working group, which I > think can > > tend to lead to inclusion of some obscure feature just because > > there's not a wide enough group to object. > > Some pretty odd things get by in the plenary, too. There seemed > always to be a general trend towards "if in doubt, keep it in" as > opposed to any real efforts to keep things simple. > > I think the testbeds have also become a bit of a liability rather > than a benefit. There are too few people working on any given topic > and/or the people working on something are spread too thin. Thus the > work is often pretty superficial and in the end, hastily thrown > together into a demo that is far removed from a true interop style > trial of the interfaces. Then the results of the testbed are > packaged > into specs that tend to get approved pretty easily at the plenary. > > In the end, you need to have a small number of people representing a > broad enough view who care passionately about the outcome and who > understand the technology well enough to build implementations and > evangelize the use of the spec. I don't see much of OGC or ISO work > fitting that profile. Interestingly enough, GML actually fits that > description. > > I also think that it doesn't matter whether a specification gets > developed in a standards body or outside it. If it's any good, it > will get used. The notion that "governments like to use ISO > specs" is > really an excuse. I suspect there was a running web browser > on nearly > every government desktop computer before HTTP and HTML ever > even came > close to being IETF or W3C specs. Google Earth showed up in > the White > House [1] before KML was handed over to OGC and I bet there's not an > ISO 191xx spec in sight inside Google Earth. > > Allan > > [1] http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6128904-7.html > > > > > -mpg > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
On Jul 26, 2007, at 18:08 , Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Sean has a good point: some of the OGC specs have been developed
with relatively few members in the working group, which I think can
tend to lead to inclusion of some obscure feature just because
there's not a wide enough group to object.
Some pretty odd things get by in the plenary, too. There seemed
always to be a general trend towards "if in doubt, keep it in" as
opposed to any real efforts to keep things simple.
I think the testbeds have also become a bit of a liability rather
than a benefit. There are too few people working on any given topic
and/or the people working on something are spread too thin. Thus the
work is often pretty superficial and in the end, hastily thrown
together into a demo that is far removed from a true interop style
trial of the interfaces. Then the results of the testbed are packaged
into specs that tend to get approved pretty easily at the plenary.
In the end, you need to have a small number of people representing a
broad enough view who care passionately about the outcome and who
understand the technology well enough to build implementations and
evangelize the use of the spec. I don't see much of OGC or ISO work
fitting that profile. Interestingly enough, GML actually fits that
description.
I also think that it doesn't matter whether a specification gets
developed in a standards body or outside it. If it's any good, it
will get used. The notion that "governments like to use ISO specs" is
really an excuse. I suspect there was a running web browser on nearly
every government desktop computer before HTTP and HTML ever even came
close to being IETF or W3C specs. Google Earth showed up in the White
House [1] before KML was handed over to OGC and I bet there's not an
ISO 191xx spec in sight inside Google Earth.
Allan
[1] http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6128904-7.html
-mpg
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Gillies
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:24 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Michael,
Standards bodies are a good thing if they produce good standards.
OGC standards tend toward fussy intricacy (compare WFS-T to the Atom
Publishing Protocol) and pointless abstraction (all the so-called
distributed computing platforms that no one uses). I don't
know why, but
I suspect that it's cultural (no, I don't mean Canadian
culture). Going
public has the potential to reform the culture of the OGC.
Regards,
Sean
Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
FYI, later this week at the GeoWeb conference in Vancouver
we're having a discussion on this hot topic:
Ever wonder why we need standards bodies? Can we just do
it with a Wiki?
We have open source, why not open source open standards?
What about intellectual
property protection? Can I afford to belong to a
standards body? Can I afford
not to? Do standards bodies impede or drive innovation?
How should neo-geo and
OGC work together? What are the pitfalls of "going public"?
I'll be on the panel, as will Carl Reed from OGC.
(Feel free to send me any comments/positions you'd like me
to put forward.)
-mpg
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeroen Ticheler
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Hi all,
Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium
Technical Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris.
For those not to familiar with this meeting, it
consists of a series of Working Group (WG) meetings that
mostly run around the development of specifications (or
standards if you wish) dealing with geo-informatics. The most
prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service
(WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup
Language (GML). There's a whole list of other specs available
or under development. OSGEO projects work with a substantial
number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details.
With this email I would like to touch upon two issues
that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up
can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit
from the OGC spec development process:
1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context
2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications
There was discussion on the possibility that KML
becomes an OGC specification and, more importantly, that it
could be used to replace the wining Web Map Context (WMC)
specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the Styled
Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the
WMC. There's
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Sean has a good point: some of the OGC specs have been developed with relatively few members in the working group, which I think can tend to lead to inclusion of some obscure feature just because there's not a wide enough group to object. -mpg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Gillies > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:24 AM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > Michael, > > Standards bodies are a good thing if they produce good standards. > > OGC standards tend toward fussy intricacy (compare WFS-T to the Atom > Publishing Protocol) and pointless abstraction (all the so-called > distributed computing platforms that no one uses). I don't > know why, but > I suspect that it's cultural (no, I don't mean Canadian > culture). Going > public has the potential to reform the culture of the OGC. > > Regards, > Sean > > Michael P. Gerlek wrote: > > FYI, later this week at the GeoWeb conference in Vancouver > we're having a discussion on this hot topic: > > > >> Ever wonder why we need standards bodies? Can we just do > it with a Wiki? > >> We have open source, why not open source open standards? > What about intellectual > >> property protection? Can I afford to belong to a > standards body? Can I afford > >> not to? Do standards bodies impede or drive innovation? > How should neo-geo and > >> OGC work together? What are the pitfalls of "going public"? > > > > I'll be on the panel, as will Carl Reed from OGC. > > > > (Feel free to send me any comments/positions you'd like me > to put forward.) > > > > -mpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeroen Ticheler > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM > > To: OSGeo Discussions > > Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > > > > > Hi all, > > Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium > Technical Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris. > > > > For those not to familiar with this meeting, it > consists of a series of Working Group (WG) meetings that > mostly run around the development of specifications (or > standards if you wish) dealing with geo-informatics. The most > prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service > (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup > Language (GML). There's a whole list of other specs available > or under development. OSGEO projects work with a substantial > number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details. > > > > With this email I would like to touch upon two issues > that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up > can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit > from the OGC spec development process: > > > > 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context > > 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications > > > > There was discussion on the possibility that KML > becomes an OGC specification and, more importantly, that it > could be used to replace the wining Web Map Context (WMC) > specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the Styled > Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the > WMC. There's a great deal of overlap between these and KML. > It is likely in the interest of these projects to share their > experience with OGC and see some of that reflected in future > OGC specs. > > > > There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS > specification. Such spec can have different forms, and could > be conceived as a new spec or as an extension (or application > profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were presented > and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the > approach taken within the OSGEO community. > > > > Observing these discussions, my impression is that > OSGEO has an important role to play in the further > development of these OGC specs. We can obviously take the > easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up with > in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC > specs still under development. The development of the specs > is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However, I > feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a > very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Michael,
Standards bodies are a good thing if they produce good standards.
OGC standards tend toward fussy intricacy (compare WFS-T to the Atom
Publishing Protocol) and pointless abstraction (all the so-called
distributed computing platforms that no one uses). I don't know why, but
I suspect that it's cultural (no, I don't mean Canadian culture). Going
public has the potential to reform the culture of the OGC.
Regards,
Sean
Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
FYI, later this week at the GeoWeb conference in Vancouver we're having a
discussion on this hot topic:
Ever wonder why we need standards bodies? Can we just do it with a Wiki?
We have open source, why not open source open standards? What about intellectual
property protection? Can I afford to belong to a standards body? Can I afford
not to? Do standards bodies impede or drive innovation? How should neo-geo and
OGC work together? What are the pitfalls of "going public"?
I'll be on the panel, as will Carl Reed from OGC.
(Feel free to send me any comments/positions you'd like me to put forward.)
-mpg
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeroen
Ticheler
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Hi all,
Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium Technical Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris.
For those not to familiar with this meeting, it consists of a series of
Working Group (WG) meetings that mostly run around the development of
specifications (or standards if you wish) dealing with geo-informatics. The
most prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service (WMS), Web
Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup Language (GML). There's a whole
list of other specs available or under development. OSGEO projects work with a
substantial number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details.
With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are
relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how
OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process:
1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context
2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications
There was discussion on the possibility that KML becomes an OGC
specification and, more importantly, that it could be used to replace the
wining Web Map Context (WMC) specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the
Styled Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the WMC. There's a
great deal of overlap between these and KML. It is likely in the interest of
these projects to share their experience with OGC and see some of that
reflected in future OGC specs.
There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS specification. Such
spec can have different forms, and could be conceived as a new spec or as an
extension (or application profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were
presented and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the approach
taken within the OSGEO community.
Observing these discussions, my impression is that OSGEO has an important role to play in the further development of these OGC specs. We can obviously take the easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up with in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC specs still under development. The development of the specs is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However, I feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can make sure experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC specs. The WMS-T is an obvious example of this. It was kind of frustrating to not see that experience properly represented at the WMS-WG.
OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an expression of
dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I think it might be time to establish
a way to formally represent OSGEO in OGC. This could be through those OSGEO
members that already hold a TC level membership to OGC (the logical first step
I would think) and later possibly through a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC.
Also, we could consider a focal point in OSGEO where specification development
is discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of a Committee for
instance. I'm hesitant to propose new Committees, but if there's enough
interest to have a central coordination point dealing with standards and specs,
it may make sense :-)
Greetings from Rome,
Jeroen
___
Jeroen Ticheler
FAO-UN
Tel: +39 06 57056041
http://www.fao.org/geonetwork
42.07420°N 12.34343°E
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
FYI, later this week at the GeoWeb conference in Vancouver we're having a
discussion on this hot topic:
> Ever wonder why we need standards bodies? Can we just do it with a Wiki?
> We have open source, why not open source open standards? What about
> intellectual
> property protection? Can I afford to belong to a standards body? Can I
> afford
> not to? Do standards bodies impede or drive innovation? How should neo-geo
> and
> OGC work together? What are the pitfalls of "going public"?
I'll be on the panel, as will Carl Reed from OGC.
(Feel free to send me any comments/positions you'd like me to put forward.)
-mpg
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeroen
Ticheler
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Hi all,
Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium Technical Committee
(OGC-TC) meeting in Paris.
For those not to familiar with this meeting, it consists of a series of
Working Group (WG) meetings that mostly run around the development of
specifications (or standards if you wish) dealing with geo-informatics. The
most prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service (WMS), Web
Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup Language (GML). There's a whole
list of other specs available or under development. OSGEO projects work with a
substantial number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details.
With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are
relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how
OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process:
1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context
2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications
There was discussion on the possibility that KML becomes an OGC
specification and, more importantly, that it could be used to replace the
wining Web Map Context (WMC) specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the
Styled Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the WMC. There's a
great deal of overlap between these and KML. It is likely in the interest of
these projects to share their experience with OGC and see some of that
reflected in future OGC specs.
There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS specification. Such
spec can have different forms, and could be conceived as a new spec or as an
extension (or application profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were
presented and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the approach
taken within the OSGEO community.
Observing these discussions, my impression is that OSGEO has an
important role to play in the further development of these OGC specs. We can
obviously take the easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up
with in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC specs still under
development. The development of the specs is likely to be quicker than going
through OGC. However, I feel that with limited effort by the community we can
have a very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can make sure
experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC specs. The WMS-T is an obvious
example of this. It was kind of frustrating to not see that experience properly
represented at the WMS-WG.
OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an expression of
dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I think it might be time to establish
a way to formally represent OSGEO in OGC. This could be through those OSGEO
members that already hold a TC level membership to OGC (the logical first step
I would think) and later possibly through a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC.
Also, we could consider a focal point in OSGEO where specification development
is discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of a Committee for
instance. I'm hesitant to propose new Committees, but if there's enough
interest to have a central coordination point dealing with standards and specs,
it may make sense :-)
Greetings from Rome,
Jeroen
___
Jeroen Ticheler
FAO-UN
Tel: +39 06 57056041
http://www.fao.org/geonetwork
42.07420°N 12.34343°E
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
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, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
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... -mpg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Becchi > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:15 AM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > I guess this thread is pretty hot, there are many sub-threads > and maybe > a good solution could be to set up a mailing list, for the beginning, > as: ogc AT osgeo.org > Trying to be practical I can offer myself to administer the > list as I'm > doing with the Spanish Chapter and the Spanish GIS Book. > > There will be the possibility to define possible actions, > participation > to OGC meeting, support to OSGeo new standards (as for Tile Map > Service), creating or not a Committee ecc ecc. > I guess we can, as minimum target, set up a lobby of OSGeo > softwares to > promote effective interoperability of OGC standards. > > ciao > Lorenzo > > ___ > 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
I guess this thread is pretty hot, there are many sub-threads and maybe a good solution could be to set up a mailing list, for the beginning, as: ogc AT osgeo.org Trying to be practical I can offer myself to administer the list as I'm doing with the Spanish Chapter and the Spanish GIS Book. There will be the possibility to define possible actions, participation to OGC meeting, support to OSGeo new standards (as for Tile Map Service), creating or not a Committee ecc ecc. I guess we can, as minimum target, set up a lobby of OSGeo softwares to promote effective interoperability of OGC standards. ciao Lorenzo ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Landon Blake wrote: It appears that some of my concerns about problems with OGC membership remain in place. I'm disappointed to learn that non-members are no longer allowed to join in the discussion. The individual membership option also presents challenges for some open source developers I imagine this could also present some problems for some of our OSGeo members. In the end, I think the OSGeo membership system is far superior to the one at the OGC. It is based on participation and qualifications, not on money. Perhaps the OSGeo could approach the OGC about some form of alternative membership system for open source projects. "I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER" Groucho Marx The one thing you can say about OGC membership, which requires money, is that all the members are qualified, because they paid their money. Of course having money, in and of itself, in no way qualifies anyone to participate in 'standards development'. By the same token, membership in OSGeo, in and of itself, in no way qualifies anyone to participate in 'standards development'. Whether or not OSGeo should become a member of OGC is a matter for discussion by OSGeo members and members of the public, and ultimately a decision by the OSGeo board. Whatever the decision, that shouldn't lessen the advocacy for 'reasonable and practical standards' by people who may be both OSGeo and OGC members. -- Dave Patton Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ FOSS4G2007: Workshop Committee Conference Committee http://www.foss4g2007.org/ Personal website: Maps, GPS, etc. http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
It appears that some of my concerns about problems with OGC membership remain in place. I'm disappointed to learn that non-members are no longer allowed to join in the discussion. The individual membership option also presents challenges for some open source developers like myself, who have a day job that doesn't pay for their involvement in an open source project, or for any type of programming. I know $400.00 doesn't sound like a lot, but you probably haven't tried asking my wife to write that check either. :] Raj wrote: " You can qualify if no one else (such as a full-time employer) has legal rights to all your work." I imagine this could also present some problems for some of our OSGeo members. In the end, I think the OSGeo membership system is far superior to the one at the OGC. It is based on participation and qualifications, not on money. It is one of the main reasons I try to be involved at some level in this organization, and not at any level in the other one. :] Perhaps the OSGeo could approach the OGC about some form of alternative membership system for open source projects. I hate to see the open source community excluded from the standards development process. I really think everyone could benefit if our voices were included. Then again, this may not bother other people like it bothers me. So I'll stop my complaining now. :] The Sunburned Surveyor -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raj Singh Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:28 PM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development But there is now officially an individual membership category. Info isn't up on the web site yet, but I think its $400/year. You can qualify if no one else (such as a full-time employer) has legal rights to all your work. On Jul 17, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > That's not an option any more, only members and prospective members > may attend TC henceforth. > > Ian Turton wrote: > >> You could also just attend the meetings as a non-member as Paul >> Ramsey >> does sometimes, or just ask some of us who do go to meetings to make >> your points for you. > ___ 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
But there is now officially an individual membership category. Info isn't up on the web site yet, but I think its $400/year. You can qualify if no one else (such as a full-time employer) has legal rights to all your work. --- Raj On Jul 17, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote: That's not an option any more, only members and prospective members may attend TC henceforth. Ian Turton wrote: You could also just attend the meetings as a non-member as Paul Ramsey does sometimes, or just ask some of us who do go to meetings to make your points for you. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
That's not an option any more, only members and prospective members may attend TC henceforth. Ian Turton wrote: You could also just attend the meetings as a non-member as Paul Ramsey does sometimes, or just ask some of us who do go to meetings to make your points for you. -- Paul Ramsey Refractions Research http://www.refractions.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 250-383-3022 Cell: 250-885-0632 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
On 7/17/07, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One of my biggest problems with the OGC is the lack of a practical membership avenue for open source projects and/or programmers. I think it would be great if the OSGeo or some of its participating projects could serve as a vehicle that would allow for more participation by the open source community in OGC standard development. I know form previous discussions wearing my GeoTools hat that you have to be a legally constituted body to join the OGC, having a mailing list, web site and SVN wasn't enough which is why GeoTools never became a member (even though a majority of our developers are members). I guess that OSGeo could become a member if the board thought that paying the money was worth it. You could also just attend the meetings as a non-member as Paul Ramsey does sometimes, or just ask some of us who do go to meetings to make your points for you. Ian -- Ian Turton http://www.geotools.org http://pennspace.blogspot.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
One of my biggest problems with the OGC is the lack of a practical membership avenue for open source projects and/or programmers. I think it would be great if the OSGeo or some of its participating projects could serve as a vehicle that would allow for more participation by the open source community in OGC standard development. The Sunburned Surveyor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeroen Ticheler Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development Hi all, Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium Technical Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris. For those not to familiar with this meeting, it consists of a series of Working Group (WG) meetings that mostly run around the development of specifications (or standards if you wish) dealing with geo-informatics. The most prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup Language (GML). There's a whole list of other specs available or under development. OSGEO projects work with a substantial number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details. With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process: 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications There was discussion on the possibility that KML becomes an OGC specification and, more importantly, that it could be used to replace the wining Web Map Context (WMC) specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the Styled Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the WMC. There's a great deal of overlap between these and KML. It is likely in the interest of these projects to share their experience with OGC and see some of that reflected in future OGC specs. There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS specification. Such spec can have different forms, and could be conceived as a new spec or as an extension (or application profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were presented and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the approach taken within the OSGEO community. Observing these discussions, my impression is that OSGEO has an important role to play in the further development of these OGC specs. We can obviously take the easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up with in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC specs still under development. The development of the specs is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However, I feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can make sure experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC specs. The WMS-T is an obvious example of this. It was kind of frustrating to not see that experience properly represented at the WMS-WG. OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an expression of dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I think it might be time to establish a way to formally represent OSGEO in OGC. This could be through those OSGEO members that already hold a TC level membership to OGC (the logical first step I would think) and later possibly through a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC. Also, we could consider a focal point in OSGEO where specification development is discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of a Committee for instance. I'm hesitant to propose new Committees, but if there's enough interest to have a central coordination point dealing with standards and specs, it may make sense :-) Greetings from Rome, Jeroen ___ Jeroen Ticheler FAO-UN Tel: +39 06 57056041 http://www.fao.org/geonetwork 42.07420°N 12.34343°E 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
Hi Lorenzo, On 17 Jul 2007, at 1:09 PM, Lorenzo Becchi wrote: Jeroen, all, very important thread to me too. generic questions: - what would it mean to create an OGC Committee? A place where those involved / interested in OGC spec development connect with each other and where OSGEO interests in standards development are coordinated or at least communicated. It could also be the place where members agree to take up issues in the TC meetings in the relevant working groups. The meetings are held every 3 months and I think most of us are unable to always attend them. - is it an overhead for the board? I think it would be the same as the other existing Committees that OSGEO now has. - will there be a board member to support this Commitee? is this needed? Good question :-) - does it mean to subscribe as OSGeo to OGC? how much does it cost? I mentioned that initially this would not be my idea, I would just start with coordination first. Later it may evolve in that direction if deemed necessary or more efficient than individual membership by OSGEO contributing individuals/ organizations/ companies. At the same time that could be a financial commitment OSGEO can not permit itself. TC membership is 11.000 USD per year. Many small companies or individual contributors are unlikely to be able to afford that. (See http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/join/levels ) It gives 2 persons free access to the meetings. There's the non-voting Associate membership that gives access to all documents and meetings as an alternative though. This would also apply to OSGEO as far as I can see and would only cost 1.100 USD per year. It gives 1 person free access to the meetings. There are some advantages in terms of marketing OGC compliance of OSGEO projects. To use the OGC Trademark there are fees to be paid for those products. See http://www.opengeospatial.org/compliance/ #products I think every OSGeo project is more or less supporting at least one OCG standard. New standards has been created too under OSGeo umbrella and it would be great to present them and make them officially OGC. This will strength interoperability between OSGeo softwares and other softwares. Between OSGeo softwares and OSGeo softwares. Between ... I love interoperability! :-) Indeed, I agree. In my email I didn't try to cover all OGC spec development OSGEO members work on as I only wanted it to trigger some internal discussion. The list of specs used in OSGEO is a substantial one. It's also a way to influence the ISO/TC211 standards development that is out of reach to OSGEO except through members that hold some observing status to that committee. OGC specs have been and probably will be used as input into the TC211 standardization process. Ciao, Jeroen ciao Lorenzo ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Jeroen, all, very important thread to me too. generic questions: - what would it mean to create an OGC Committee? - is it an overhead for the board? - will there be a board member to support this Commitee? is this needed? - does it mean to subscribe as OSGeo to OGC? how much does it cost? I think every OSGeo project is more or less supporting at least one OCG standard. New standards has been created too under OSGeo umbrella and it would be great to present them and make them officially OGC. This will strength interoperability between OSGeo softwares and other softwares. Between OSGeo softwares and OSGeo softwares. Between ... I love interoperability! :-) ciao Lorenzo Jody Garnett wrote: Thanks for the update Jeroen - going to add one more to your list... Jeroen Ticheler wrote: With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process: 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications 3-Discussions related to the GeoAPI working group that was formed For additional information I am going to quote todays GeoTools meeting (where we got a status update): acuster: GeoAPI went to the OGC conference in Paris acuster: ...and successfully dodged the rain. acuster: acuster: Martin found out a week before that the working group had been disolved, acuster: which we weren't sure what it meant. acuster: acuster: We went to try to push many changes since 2.0 through so as to acuster: make two new releases, the compatible 2.1 and the client breaking 3.0. acuster: acuster: Martin and I gave a talk. acuster: I waved my hands about what GeoAPI was to a fairly full room 20-30 people; acuster: seemed well received. acuster: Martin started asking the room for their opionions on change number 1; acuster: total silence. acuster: acuster: No one had read the doc or felt qualifed to comment. acuster: So he went through and summarized the proposals, acuster: which was well received: they liked the rigour, they liked the idea. acuster: acuster: We passed a motion to ask the Technical Committee to let us form the acuster: acuster: GeoAPI Standards Working Group acuster: acuster: which, on thursday they accepted. The group will eventually propose GeoAPI as acuster: its very own implementation standard. (When we return to GO-1 territory we will acuster: presumably deprecate the old spec and offer our own). acuster: acuster: So now: acuster: 1) we will need volunteers to sit on the working group acuster: 2) we will need to stay active and propose one set of changes at least a year. acuster: If we do, in six months or so we could propose GeoAPI 3.0 as the base for the acuster: standard and would work to amend and extend the spec thereafter. ___ 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
[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Thanks for the update Jeroen - going to add one more to your list... Jeroen Ticheler wrote: With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process: 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications 3-Discussions related to the GeoAPI working group that was formed For additional information I am going to quote todays GeoTools meeting (where we got a status update): acuster: GeoAPI went to the OGC conference in Paris acuster: ...and successfully dodged the rain. acuster: acuster: Martin found out a week before that the working group had been disolved, acuster: which we weren't sure what it meant. acuster: acuster: We went to try to push many changes since 2.0 through so as to acuster: make two new releases, the compatible 2.1 and the client breaking 3.0. acuster: acuster: Martin and I gave a talk. acuster: I waved my hands about what GeoAPI was to a fairly full room 20-30 people; acuster: seemed well received. acuster: Martin started asking the room for their opionions on change number 1; acuster: total silence. acuster: acuster: No one had read the doc or felt qualifed to comment. acuster: So he went through and summarized the proposals, acuster: which was well received: they liked the rigour, they liked the idea. acuster: acuster: We passed a motion to ask the Technical Committee to let us form the acuster: acuster: GeoAPI Standards Working Group acuster: acuster: which, on thursday they accepted. The group will eventually propose GeoAPI as acuster: its very own implementation standard. (When we return to GO-1 territory we will acuster: presumably deprecate the old spec and offer our own). acuster: acuster: So now: acuster: 1) we will need volunteers to sit on the working group acuster: 2) we will need to stay active and propose one set of changes at least a year. acuster: If we do, in six months or so we could propose GeoAPI 3.0 as the base for the acuster: standard and would work to amend and extend the spec thereafter. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Also remember that OGC has made its Mass Market Working Group discussion list public: http://mail.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/mass-market-geo This is the best way for non-members to get in on certain discussions, particularly the ones Jeroen mentions. That allows individuals to put forth their opinions. A unified OSGeo opinion would certainly carry more weight, so I think it's valuable to move that discussion forward. --- Raj On Jul 16, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote: A number of us have this same sort of conversation in the past, but we've never come up with anything that satisifies all concerned... Perhaps a BOF/Summit/Thingie at the conference in September to talk about this? -mpg From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:discuss- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeroen Ticheler Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development Hi all, Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium Technical Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris. For those not to familiar with this meeting, it consists of a series of Working Group (WG) meetings that mostly run around the development of specifications (or standards if you wish) dealing with geo-informatics. The most prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup Language (GML). There's a whole list of other specs available or under development. OSGEO projects work with a substantial number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details. With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process: 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications There was discussion on the possibility that KML becomes an OGC specification and, more importantly, that it could be used to replace the wining Web Map Context (WMC) specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the Styled Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the WMC. There's a great deal of overlap between these and KML. It is likely in the interest of these projects to share their experience with OGC and see some of that reflected in future OGC specs. There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS specification. Such spec can have different forms, and could be conceived as a new spec or as an extension (or application profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were presented and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the approach taken within the OSGEO community. Observing these discussions, my impression is that OSGEO has an important role to play in the further development of these OGC specs. We can obviously take the easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up with in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC specs still under development. The development of the specs is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However, I feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can make sure experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC specs. The WMS-T is an obvious example of this. It was kind of frustrating to not see that experience properly represented at the WMS-WG. OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an expression of dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I think it might be time to establish a way to formally represent OSGEO in OGC. This could be through those OSGEO members that already hold a TC level membership to OGC (the logical first step I would think) and later possibly through a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC. Also, we could consider a focal point in OSGEO where specification development is discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of a Committee for instance. I'm hesitant to propose new Committees, but if there's enough interest to have a central coordination point dealing with standards and specs, it may make sense :-) Greetings from Rome, Jeroen ___ Jeroen Ticheler FAO-UN Tel: +39 06 57056041 http://www.fao.org/geonetwork 42.07420°N 12.34343°E ___ 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
A number of us have this same sort of conversation in the past, but we've never come up with anything that satisifies all concerned... Perhaps a BOF/Summit/Thingie at the conference in September to talk about this? -mpg From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeroen Ticheler Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development Hi all, Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium Technical Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris. For those not to familiar with this meeting, it consists of a series of Working Group (WG) meetings that mostly run around the development of specifications (or standards if you wish) dealing with geo-informatics. The most prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup Language (GML). There's a whole list of other specs available or under development. OSGEO projects work with a substantial number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details. With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process: 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications There was discussion on the possibility that KML becomes an OGC specification and, more importantly, that it could be used to replace the wining Web Map Context (WMC) specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the Styled Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the WMC. There's a great deal of overlap between these and KML. It is likely in the interest of these projects to share their experience with OGC and see some of that reflected in future OGC specs. There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS specification. Such spec can have different forms, and could be conceived as a new spec or as an extension (or application profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were presented and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the approach taken within the OSGEO community. Observing these discussions, my impression is that OSGEO has an important role to play in the further development of these OGC specs. We can obviously take the easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up with in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC specs still under development. The development of the specs is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However, I feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can make sure experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC specs. The WMS-T is an obvious example of this. It was kind of frustrating to not see that experience properly represented at the WMS-WG. OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an expression of dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I think it might be time to establish a way to formally represent OSGEO in OGC. This could be through those OSGEO members that already hold a TC level membership to OGC (the logical first step I would think) and later possibly through a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC. Also, we could consider a focal point in OSGEO where specification development is discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of a Committee for instance. I'm hesitant to propose new Committees, but if there's enough interest to have a central coordination point dealing with standards and specs, it may make sense :-) Greetings from Rome, Jeroen ___ Jeroen Ticheler FAO-UN Tel: +39 06 57056041 http://www.fao.org/geonetwork 42.07420°N 12.34343°E ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
Hi all, Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium Technical Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris. For those not to familiar with this meeting, it consists of a series of Working Group (WG) meetings that mostly run around the development of specifications (or standards if you wish) dealing with geo- informatics. The most prominent specifications coming from OGC are Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and Geographic Markup Language (GML). There's a whole list of other specs available or under development. OSGEO projects work with a substantial number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for more details. With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec development process: 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications There was discussion on the possibility that KML becomes an OGC specification and, more importantly, that it could be used to replace the wining Web Map Context (WMC) specification. A number of OSGEO projects use the Styled Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology)) specification and the WMC. There's a great deal of overlap between these and KML. It is likely in the interest of these projects to share their experience with OGC and see some of that reflected in future OGC specs. There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS specification. Such spec can have different forms, and could be conceived as a new spec or as an extension (or application profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were presented and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the approach taken within the OSGEO community. Observing these discussions, my impression is that OSGEO has an important role to play in the further development of these OGC specs. We can obviously take the easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up with in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC specs still under development. The development of the specs is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However, I feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can make sure experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC specs. The WMS-T is an obvious example of this. It was kind of frustrating to not see that experience properly represented at the WMS-WG. OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an expression of dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I think it might be time to establish a way to formally represent OSGEO in OGC. This could be through those OSGEO members that already hold a TC level membership to OGC (the logical first step I would think) and later possibly through a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC. Also, we could consider a focal point in OSGEO where specification development is discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of a Committee for instance. I'm hesitant to propose new Committees, but if there's enough interest to have a central coordination point dealing with standards and specs, it may make sense :-) Greetings from Rome, Jeroen ___ Jeroen Ticheler FAO-UN Tel: +39 06 57056041 http://www.fao.org/geonetwork 42.07420°N 12.34343°E ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
