[OSGeo-Board] OSGeo status regarding implementation of standards

[Gary Lang]

They are wondering how we intersect/overlap, that's all. It would be sad
if sponsorship for OGC was to decrease because people are confused and
think we're replacing them. We are not, so I don't see any reason for
concern.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael P. Gerlek [mailto:mpg at lizardtech.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:58 AM
To: Arnulf Christl; OSGeo-Board
Cc: Paul Ramsey; tmitchell at osgeo.org
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Board] OSGeo status regarding implementation of
standards

I'm kinda curious what exactly OGC means by asking this question --
"whether OSGeo wants to become an active standardization body."  Who
from OGC is asking, and why do they even care?  Was it just that they
were interested because the original TMS spec was related to their WMS
spec, or..?

(fyi, I've heard a few off-list wonderings in the past couple days about
our standards position & so forth, largely as a result of AdenaS's blog.
I'm glad we're taking the time to clarify our position.)

-mpg


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnulf Christl [mailto:arnulf.christl at ccgis.de]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:00 AM
> To: OSGeo-Board
> Cc: Paul Ramsey; tmitchell at osgeo.org
> Subject: [OSGeo-Board] OSGeo status regarding implementation of 
> standards
> 
> Hi,
> I have been asked by the OGC whether OSGeo wants to become an active 
> standardization body. I said that OSGeo has set a high affinity for 
> standards in its charter but that it is currently not actively 
> developing them. Reading the page "Tile Map Service Specification" 
> speaks a different language though:
> 
> From: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Tile_Map_Service_Specification
> This specification is currently in active revision, edits are accepted

> from any user at any time. Please join the mailing list 
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiling to discuss your ideas 
> before applying them to the draft. The specification will first move 
> from active revision to final review and then finally to numbered 
> specification, at which point it will be locked.
> 
> Personally I am all in favor of a fast, easy, and truly open process 
> that considers technical aspects and goes about it pragmatically. But 
> we do not have an official statement regarding this. As long as we 
> have not considered this we should be careful proclaiming the above 
> 'standard' in the way we do because of all kings of legal 
> implications.
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> Best regards,
> Arnulf. 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org For 
> additional commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org For additional
commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org