<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/09/2013 07:33 PM, Tim Bowden
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1368120834.20506.18.camel@mordor" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hey Cameron, all,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> * The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
alternative way forwards.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
better reception from the broader OSGeo community (with the diverse
viewpoints it typically has) if the proposal was more that a "take it or
leave it" (partial?) description of what ESRI has done and is going to
do anyway. If there was at least some willingness to engage with the
broader community on interoperability within the standard (and how do
you have interoperability if you aren't willing to budge from a
pre-defined position anyway?).
Perhaps ESRI didn't realise their approach was going to come across with
an "up you" attitude (or maybe they did)? The impression I've got it
that many people feel ESRI is treating the OGC as a "rubber stamp" body
(which very much implies arrogant contempt) regardless of the merits of
the proposal. Hopefully I've got it wrong and ESRI really just botched
their approach on this one (why do I feel this is naive wishful
thinking?).
FWIW, I don't believe having an alternate incompatible standard must of
itself be a deal breaker, if the proposed standard genuinely represents
a viable attempt at interoperability. After all, the wonderful thing
about standards is there are so many to choose from. ;) Lets just not
pretend it's about genuine interoperability unless that really is the
case.
Regards,
Tim Bowden
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
it's not only rejection in the letter, there is also a way forward
that I took the liberty to suggest:<br>
<br>
<i>The components making up the ESRI "Geoservice REST API" provide
natural blocks assignable to the matching SWGs. As for Part 6 of
the ESRI "Geoservice REST API", if to become a standard it needs
to be discussed in the WCS.SWG for harmonization, clarification,
and improvement.
</i><i><br>
</i><br>
cheers,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a>
mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.com">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com">baumann@rasdaman.com</a>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
</pre>
</body>
</html>