<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
NASA's Standards Process Group seeks to recognize community-developed
standards and has a review process that relies on community experience
with such standards. A NASA-endorsed standard can be recommended for
usage in future missions, such as the Decadal Survey missions currently
formulating their science data processing systems (DESDynI, ICESat-II,
SMAP, CLARREO, etc.)<br>
<br>
The review process is started with submission of an RFC to the SPG.
Such a move was initiated by the GeoTIFF community some years back, but
ran out of steam before the document was prepared.<br>
<br>
Perhaps someone is willing to renew this effort?<br>
<br>
SiriJodha S. Khalsa<br>
<br>
Howard Butler wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:A36E5200-9295-49C2-9A03-FE2B362D4067@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Oct 26, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Carl Reed wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear GeoTIFF list -
At the recent OGC meetings in Darmstadt, several OGC Members (large
user organizations) asked whether there is any interest on the part
of the OGC to move GeoTIFF into the OGC standards process and
eventually make GeoTIFF an international standard. As we have done
with other de-facto standards submitted into the OGC standards
process, I would see very few (if any) normative changes to the
document as it moves to a version 1.0 OGC standard. I know that the
implementation community would not appreciate any "normative
changes"! Further, as with KML, CF-NetCDF and other documents, we
believe that maintaining a strong collaborative relationship with
the existing GeoTIFF community is critical.
As part of this process, the OGC and OGC Members would be
responsible for reformatting the document into the proper template,
marshalling volunteer resources to move the document through the OGC
process, and to insure proper communication and engagement with the
current GeoTIFF community.
Your thoughts regarding this proposal are appreciated!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
My concerns with the approach the following:
- OGC subsuming the current GeoTIFF specification and becoming its
ongoing authority effectively destroys any grass roots community that
has sprung up around geotiff because of OGC's membership
requirements. Casual or short-term-to-complete-this-job interest in
geotiff is effectively shut out from participating, though you could
argue there isn't much of this anyway.
- OGC hasn't demonstrated that it can pull community-developed
specifications into its world and have the community that birthed them
survive the process. Does OGC's sausage taste that much better than
sausage made outside the OGC?
- GeoTIFF already has a widely used and effective reference
implementation -- libgeotiff. That's more authority than a document
stamped with an organization's letterhead can ever hope to be.
What benefits would this development be to the GeoTIFF community other
than forced acceptance of OGC-style axis order discipline? ;) Is the
main benefit is to be the ability to make changes to the specification
that implementers will have to implement to be compliant? Why try to
evolve a specification that has been widely used and unchanged for
nearly 10 years?
_______________________________________________
Geotiff mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Geotiff@lists.maptools.org">Geotiff@lists.maptools.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff">http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa">http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>