[Spanish] Re: [OSGeo-Standards] TMS and WMTS

[Raj Singh]

+1. Luis perfectly describes an ideal way to add to an existing  
standard.

However, simplifying a standard is more difficult, as this usually  
involves removing functionality that's useful, but only in a few  
"edge" cases. This is where time/effort early in the process is  
critical.

---
Raj


On Apr 7, at 10:49 AM, Luis W. Sevilla wrote:

> Hi, I had not subscribed to the standards list and I haven't  
> followed the discussion, so sorry if this has being posted before.
>
> I tend to think that OGC it's a meeting for normalization (sort of
> 'thinkers'), and OSGeo it's a meeting for software developers (mostly
> 'doers'). Don't misunderstand me. We at OSGeo of course we're  
> technology
> thinkers, but not usually interoperability standard thinkers, and  
> they,
> most of them, are people in the 'knowledge' field, and try to describe
> how to cut their field in standard pieces ready to be exchanged.
> From my point of view the mistake at tiles was that only by writing a
> schematic explanation and by implementing it you don't have and
> standard. Only a (slightly) documented piece of software.
>
> The question that Arnulf posted yesterday was 'to find out what each  
> of
> us could have done to better integrate results and findings'. And I'm
> convinced that OSGeo could have tried to understand better how the
> normalization process works, looked for a couple of OGC members
> interested in tiles, and write a more descriptive paper and send it to
> next OGC TC Meeting in the form of discussion paper, for pushing the  
> WMS
> modification.
>
> So, for next coming opportunities, I suggest as soon as we'll have  
> some
> sort of modification or improvement to a norm, we may write a
> Change/Requirement Request in the specific norm, by means of this
> modification to be discussed by OGC. Of course, if the CR it's binded
> with a piece of code that implements the suggestion will be better.
>
> my two cents
>
> Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Schuyler Erle wrote:
>>
>>> * On  6-Apr-2010 at  6:13PM EDT, Cameron Shorter said:
>>>
>>>> Suggested improvement: The OGC should weight OGC testbed funding  
>>>> to  favour  Open Source implementations, as the implementations  
>>>> are  significantly more valuable to OGC sponsors and the greater  
>>>> GIS  community as the implementations are made available for free.
>>>>
>>> One last point: The OGC should take the final suggestion made by
>>> Cameron very seriously.
>>>
>>> SDE
>>>
>>
>> Folks,
>> thanks for the quick feedback.
>>
>> Testbed funding is pretty irrelevant in terms of helping us solve the
>> communication issues with the OGC. The main OGC sponsors are  
>> proprietary
>> software vendors. Tell me how Open Source implementations are
>> significantly more valuable to them. :-) On top of this test bed  
>> work is
>> rather boring, badly funded and has low recognition. But maybe I just
>> miss a point here. Who wants to get testbed funding? Please ask me,
>> maybe we can work something out, there are several interested EU  
>> projects.
>>
>> Let me add a quick note form my perspective. I was in the middle of
>> trying to bridge between OGC and OSGeo around the tiling discussion.
>> This culminated in an IRC chat with Chris Schmidt during an OGC  
>> plenary
>> discussion and asking him whether the current take of the OGC's  
>> draft is
>> implementable or not. He answered 20 minutes later: "Yes, I  
>> implemented
>> it". That was cool. It just does not happen very often. But it shows
>> that we are not half as disconnected as some suggestions might make  
>> us
>> believe, except in our minds. And it always takes two sides to  
>> actually
>> *want* to connect. The want-this bit on OSGeo's side lacks. This is  
>> not
>> an opinion but my experience. Where does this frustration come from?
>>
>> I wonder whether OSGeo could also improve on something. All  
>> suggestions
>> up to now point to the OGC needing to this or that. Let me ask back:
>> What could OSGeo do to improve? It is not like the OSGeo tiling
>> standards dominate the world, do they? If we really want to  
>> contribute
>> to the standards world in a meaningful way we should take this  
>> serious
>> and not just complain.
>>
>> If you ask: Who is the OGC? Then the answer is the same as for OSGeo:
>> "Their respective members!" Now, who are the members of OGC?  
>> Believe me
>> when I say that some more FOSS folks there would make me very  
>> happy. We
>> have a MoU that gave us 6 OGC member slots for OSGeo folks and NONE  
>> of
>> them are currently in use. That sucks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnulf.
>>
>> PS:
>> Most CC'd folks are on the standards list anyway so I dropped them.
>>
>> - --
>> Arnulf Christl
>>
>> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
>> http://arnulf.us
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAku8ipoACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2O5QCfQD5mNXLzfj7cRfL7r8yElfO+
>> +toAn3OPyA9DVdJmYDg1l0saI9NtgGyS
>> =wK1P
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spanish mailing list
>> Spanish at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/spanish
>>
>> --
>> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Director Técnico / CTO
> Sigrid - Grupo Acotelsa
> Tel. +34 600 433 808
> http://www.stereowebmap.com
> http://www.sigrid.es
>
> The secret to programming is not intelligence, though of course that  
> helps. It is not hard work or experience, though they help, too. The  
> secret to programming is having smart friends. (Ron Avitzur)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards