<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks all for feedback and suggestions.<br>
<br>
I'd be comfortable with PyWPS being included without a web
interface, if there is a PyWPS quickstart showing how it can be used
within a client application.<br>
<br>
More comments inline<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/08/2014 8:50 pm, Johan Van de Wauw
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJOp35=z1mXG7eAr5Yxw9RM+3HVcm9wqaO6dXCF9ZRmq1RwbhQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
To avoid confusion I think we should perhaps update our overview and
split up web services [1]. Now it reads: "publishing spatial data to
the internet". That does not cover all services, nor is the list very
understandable.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
We have had a few goes at trying to aggregate applications, and I
don't think there is a way to cleanly aggregate all applications,
and there many applications provide multiple services.<br>
Eg: GeoServer provides WMS, WFS, WCS, WPS. GeoNode includes WMS,
WFS, WCS, ...<br>
I suggest keeping existing categorisation, and adding, but changing
description to:<br>
"publishing <b>and processing</b> spatial data via the internet"<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJOp35=z1mXG7eAr5Yxw9RM+3HVcm9wqaO6dXCF9ZRmq1RwbhQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I suggest split it up in data publishing services, metadata publishing
services, processing services and other services. With a short
explanation of what they mean with a reference to the pages describing
the standards that we already have [2].</pre>
</blockquote>
This index page already has a lot of text on it. I wary of adding
extra text as it makes it harder to find what people are looking
for.<br>
Effectively, this page is equivalent of a Table of Contents.<br>
While I like the idea of linking to standards from this page, it
will likely become messy when you consider that many projects
support 4+ standards. We do have this information in the Project
Overviews instead.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJOp35=z1mXG7eAr5Yxw9RM+3HVcm9wqaO6dXCF9ZRmq1RwbhQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I believe these standards pages also need some more care. I really
wonder if anyone who is not familiar can read those.</pre>
</blockquote>
I fully agree. I'd go so far as to say they need a complete rewrite.<br>
This would take a non-trivial amount of effort. Unfortunately, then
OGC standard descriptions are very variable, and as such there isn't
an authoritative source providing good, concise descriptions of OGC
standards. (This has been raised with the OGC).<br>
If someone were prepared to write good overviews of OGC standards, I
expect you will get reviewers from the OGC, and the OGC will likely
adopt them too.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJOp35=z1mXG7eAr5Yxw9RM+3HVcm9wqaO6dXCF9ZRmq1RwbhQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The user with little domain-specific knowledge should probably first
find out that what he really needs is a WPS service, and then have a
look at the different possibilities. In fact one could argue that we
could have a quickstart about consuming the services could be separate
from the quickstart for configuring services...
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html">http://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html</a>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://live.osgeo.org/en/standards/standards.html">http://live.osgeo.org/en/standards/standards.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</body>
</html>