[OSGeo-Discuss] regarding Standards on the beta website
James Klassen
klassen.js at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 14:51:42 PDT 2017
Bob, Are you trying to differentiate direct support of standards vs
indirect support via another package?
GeoMoose is a web client and I believe the current project page (at least
as of when I was working on it at the FOSS4G code sprint) correctly states
the supported standards.
While MapServer is commonly used along side GeoMoose and when it is the
capabilities of the two cascade, but I believe what MapServer supports
belongs on MapServer's project page, not GeoMoose's.
On Aug 23, 2017 16:33, "Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)" <
bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
Jody,
I meant that sometime an application uses the Standards, but doesn’t really
support them (per OGC specifications). GeoMoose for example can read and
write out WMS and WFS via MapServer. And in it’s latest incarnation even
read WFS directly. Some of these capabilities adhere to the OGC spec’s for
“supports”, but some don’t.
On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
Do you mean the difference between clients and servers? I would hope WMS
support in OpenLayers is clearly distinct from WMS support in MapServer.
GeoMoose as an installation, serves up WMS/WFS via MapServer. It can also
act as (at least) a WFS client and read from WFS directly.
Can you clarify bobb, standards are confusing / intimidating enough as it
is (especially for projects that implement a wall of them).
I’m just trying to caution against using blanket statements of support is
all, and hopefully present some real world examples to back up my
statements.
Ideally I would like to see projects that are certified by OGC place the
correct logos on these pages.
I guess that’s where I’m going with this, GeoMoose has not gone through the
process of certifing it’s OGC standards. They have a very specific process
to do this too, and based on that I’m saying that GeoMoose for one, would
not be 100% compliant, as an example. Some pieces could be though.
So we just say we can use those standards and have support for some of them
vs having (100%) OGC compliance.
bobb
--
Jody Garnett
On 23 August 2017 at 08:47, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <
bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
> All,
>
> “Support for” and “able to use” should be separate criteria in the OGC
> capabilities (I think) as well.
>
> bobb
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> wrote:
>
> In our case, nesting won't help (if project XXX selects "OGC" as its
> standards support in the wordpress backend, the reader of our site will
> assume that all OGC standards are met by project XXX - so yes I agree that
> the best thing is to delete the single "OGC" option.
>
> As for other "standards", we will need to specify that somehow.
>
> Possibly we can specify this directly in the description? For example:
>
> Web Processing Service (WPS)
>
> would become:
>
> OGC: Web Processing Service (WPS)
>
>
> and
>
> Georeferenced Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF)
>
> would become:
>
> Other: Web Processing Service (WPS)
>
>
> thoughts?
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-08-22 3:22 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
> Note that the issue here is not nested or not; the issue is that we must
> be careful with the use of the word "standard" on our new site. -jeff
> On 2017-08-22 3:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> Never mind, you can have nesting, so OGC can contain WFS, WMS, WCS, etc...
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 22 August 2017 at 11:09, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com <
> mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com <jody.garnett at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> You can click on the number, in this case 11, and see a list of the
> projects implementing the OGC standard. I am deleting it now...
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 22 August 2017 at 10:17, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com
> <mailto:even.rouault at spatialys.com <even.rouault at spatialys.com>>>
> wrote:
>
> __
>
> On mardi 22 août 2017 14:07:04 CEST Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
> > Many of these don't make any sense to me, if you ask me my
> opinion. We
>
> > should be using the list of OGC standards and entering them into
>
> > wordpress, and not allowing editors to edit/add new
> non-standards. But
>
> > that is all my own opinion :) Then we can link to these
> standards. As
>
> > of now anyone can create a 'standard' and post it on the beta
> site,
>
> > seems very odd to me.
>
> Just a remainder that OGC is not the only source of standards.
> For example, GeoJSON is IETF RFC 7946 for example (and before
> last year, was a community standard). GeoTIFF can also be
> considered as a defacto standard, etc.. You have also the ISO
> standards for metadata, etc...
>
> Probably a loose definition for standards could be a
> specification available somewhere (potentially behind a paywall
> like ISO...), and implemented by at least several software/vendors.
>
> Even
>
> >
>
> > Is my opinion here too strong? For now I chose just to edit the
>
> > descriptions for all of these 'standards', valid or not.
>
> >
>
> > What do you prefer?
>
> >
>
> > -jeff
>
> >
>
> > On 2017-08-22 1:59 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> > > Thanks jeff, I just noticed that work had been done in the
> GeoServer
>
> > > meeting :) We also spotted one standard "OGC" which does
> not make sense.
>
> > >
>
> > > Do you think it is worthwhile linking to these standards?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --
>
> > > Jody Garnett
>
> > >
>
> > > On 22 August 2017 at 09:42, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
> <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
>
> > >
>
> > > <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>>> wrote:
>
> > > Since we have so many website 'editors' (currently 84),
> please if
>
> > > you do create a new "standard" (double-quote use is on
> purpose, as
>
> > > many of these are not actual standards) when you are
> editing your
>
> > > project page, please let me know and I will edit the new
> standard
>
> > > and add a description - I have just went through all of these
>
> > > "standards" and set descriptions for each of the 27
> "standards".
>
> > >
>
> > > For example:
>
> > > (WPS)
>
> > >
>
> > > will now appear on the project pages as:
>
> > >
>
> > > Web Processing Service (WPS)
>
> > >
>
> > > This consistency makes it much easier to read for new users
> to our
>
> > > site.
>
> > >
>
> > > thanks all!
>
> > >
>
> > > -jeff
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Discuss mailing list
>
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> <Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>>
>
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
>
> http://www.spatialys.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> <Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> "The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those
> who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
“There’s no place like home”
- Dorothy Gale, from the Wizard of Oz.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170823/4fb22e46/attachment.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list