urrent proposal it will become an OGC
controlled rather than ESRI controlled standard, please correct me!!
Brent Wood
--- On Sat, 5/11/13, Adrian Custer wrote:
From: Adrian Custer
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The OSGeo response to the proposed "GeoServices
REST API" document [was:
On 10 May 2013 18:40, Adrian Custer 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 on
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 stron
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 strongly suspect the proposed standard would have
Adrian,
A really excellent analysis of the situation, and an even better
critique of the proposed standard.
This was particularly cogent:
The scope claims that the document identifies resources and a way to
use "structured URLs" to exchange those resources between clients and
services. If t
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
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
use
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
wrote:
> On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
>>> Hey Camer
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
b
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
bette
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
better reception from the broader OSGeo co
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 re
12 matches
Mail list logo
