[OSGeo-Discuss] Using an OSGeo membership to work at the OGC

Adrian Custer acuster at gmail.com
Fri Apr 15 07:17:15 PDT 2011


Hey Jody!

On 04/15/2011 03:27 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> There were some restrictions with respect to use of the memberships; as
> a result I could not use them to participate in geoapi (as the
> organisation I worked for at the time was in position to be an ogc
> member; that precluded me making use of one of the osgeo memberships).
>
> If you are working in a research capacity, or strictly as a volunteer,
> perhaps you could make use of one of the OSGeo memberships.
>
> I don't think we had any restrictions on their use; but it would be nice
> to discuss anything interesting on the standards at osgeo.org email list.
>
> All the best,
> Jody Garnett

Ohh la, la! "anything interesting"!?

There is so much interesting going on that I can't possibly keep track 
and I really don't know how to communicate that back. During the closing 
pleneray of every TC meeting (every 3 months), each working group or 
ad-hoc meeting reports back and tells everyone where things stand. Those 
could form the basis of some report or some such. As a quick example:

CityGML
Going whole hog with great energy, know very little about status or goals.

CSW
Working very slowly so not sure when these will be released, but 3 
appears close.
CSW 3.x => (on ebrim 3?), defining a required open search interface.
CSW 4.0 => on ebrim 4, has taken a back seat for now.

GeoDRM
dead for now {yeah!}, actually there is an abstract model in which the 
'gatekeeper' is magical software that exists on every device, cannot be 
broken, and works. I suspect it is unimplementable but, if it were, 
would not recover elegantly from failure.

GEOSPARQL
spatial triples and operators as a foundation for the semantic web, 
whatever that will really turn out to be

GEOXACML
adding spatial rules for OASIS's XACML, part of the WS-* stack used for 
security.

GML
GML 3.2 => stable basis for a while [RELEASED]
GML 3.3 => more advanced data structures extending 3.2 [ALMOST]
GML 4.0 => initial meeting possibly around FOSS4G Denver, how to 
modularize? what to provide differently than GML 3.x? [FOUR YEARS AWAY]

NetCDF
Published.

O&M
The observation and measurement spec (also ISO 19156) has landed as a 
core part of our work.

OWS Context
Recently started to define a way to share a description of the current 
state of a 'view' on a system, that is the open visualizations, 
accessible services, and currently visualized information. (Something 
like a 'project file' in a certain proprietary system.) Have good energy.

Pub-Sub
Recently started to define a mechanism for services to work through 
subscription to a service which then publishes and pushes out 
information. Working hard, fast, and well driven by needs of the US Next 
Generation Aviation infrastructure.

SIMPLE FEATURES
Expanding and modularizing the existing spec. These never had 'simple' 
attributes as in a shapefile but were only ever features with single 
geometry (which I did not understand for a while) only a single geometry 
property, the geometry itself will no longer be simple either since they 
are bringing in all the data structures from SQLMM. [6mo-1year? AWAY]

SE
Working on the next spec trying to address many issues and new 
functionality. Are currently lining up all the votes for the pieces 
which should be integrated.

SLD
being taken over by WMS

SWE
SWE Common Data Model 2.0 => RELEASED
SWE (base) Service Model 2.0 => RELEASED
SOS and SPS updates based on these new foundations are, I think, being 
done now.

Table Joinning Service
Just RELEASED, not sure what it is exactly.

WCS
WCS 2.0 => core is done and implementations exist. They are currently 
working on extensions for more functionality.
WCPS (Web Coverage Processing Service) is apparently not a service at 
all but really a language for expressing processing rules.

WFS
Not sure at all where they are or what they are working on.

WMS
WMTS 1.0 => RELEASED
WMS 2.0 => taking the modularization injunction to heart and trying to 
clean up all the loose ends from these past years of 'messy wms'. Have a 
good core and we are currently trying to nail down the re-structuring of 
the standard. We have identified almost all the key issues we need to 
fix, are writing up for each the alternative solutions and their 
advantages and disadvantages. Aiming to finish this year.

WPS
Not sure where things stand or where they are headed, nor really of how 
active they are currently.

OWS Common
Currently languishing to the chagrin of everyone. I proposed a way 
forwards, now only need the energy to push it forwards but need to 
finish WMS 2.0 first.


There are also cross-cutting issues which drive work in multiple groups. 
The work on the european spatial data infrastructure driven by INSPIRE 
has raised many issues; due to their legally mandated schedule they have 
had to solve their issues in their own ways quickly. The meteorologists 
have descended upon us these past few years and pushed hard and well to 
have their needs addressed which I expect to really start happening next 
year.

Internally, we have many currents as well. The requirement to build 
specs as assemblages of modules has been hard for everyone and yet very 
useful, making for better standards. There is a real, historical split 
between the Sensor/Observation work and the WCS, WFS, WMS, WPS services 
but we are starting to find common ground and may grow closer over time. 
The REST debate rages, flaring up every other month---it is pushing us 
all to think better about how these services could work.

(Hmm, well even this 'off the top of my head' example was not quick.)

~adrian

>
> On Friday, 15 April 2011 at 10:34 PM, Adrian Custer wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> In reviewing Arnulf's recent white paper, I was reminded that OSGeo has
>> various memberships to the OGC. Since I am in need of re-joining the OGC
>> as an individual member, I might be in a position to use such a
>> membership.
>>
>> Do we have any guidelines on how these memberships are to be used?
>> Specifically, if I were to use one of them would I need to 'represent'
>> the OSGeo membership in some way (which I would find hard since I have
>> always been on the margins of OSGeo) or could I continue to represent
>> the 'free software community' as I feel I already do quite a bit at the
>> OGC? Are there any other responsiblities that using one of those
>> memberships would bring, such as reporting back to OSGeo in some way?
>>
>> More practically, how would one go about requesting such a membership?
>>
>> And finally, is anyone actually invested in any of these memberships yet?
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any information or pointers,
>> ~~adrian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



More information about the Discuss mailing list