[OSGeo-Standards] [RESTful-Policy.SWG] Encodings and REST

[Even Rouault]

Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 14:54:34, Arnulf Christl a écrit :
> Folks,
> I neither followed the discussion closely not the decision process of
> the SWG. Can somebody summarize the rationale of the Geoservices REST
> API group for not implementing GeoJSON but going down another route?
> 
> Somehow it seems like OGC is becoming just yet another party in the
> general noise of format proliferation. We did better in other areas,
> how come we cannot stay on top of this one?
> 
> This is pretty clear language, how are we going to address it?
> https://twitter.com/vmx/status/259275792817741824
> 
> Apparently this comment by Volker Mische (who we know as supportive to
> the OGC) is receiving a lot of positive support in the broader
> geospatial IT crowd. Ignoring is not a solution.

Hi,

I'm unfortunately not very aware of the OGC processes, but will all the 
comments that have been posted on 
http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/ in July and August 2012 be 
answered, or did they just land in a black hole ? There were pretty good 
points exposed by a great diversity of people, that shouldn't be ignored IMHO.

I had exposed my concerns about the lack of consistency of the new proposal 
with existing OGC standards. Reading 
http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/oab , I see that "Specifically, 
the OGC Architecture Board works with the TC and the PC to insure architecture 
consistency of the Baseline". I would be indeed very interested in hearing how 
the new proposal is architecturely consistent with the baseline (*)

WMTS was an example of how OGC standards could be amended to embrace REST. The 
new proposal takes a completely different route.

Finally, I second Volker on the lack of transparency of the process. It is 
good that OGC standards are open when they are finished, but it would be much 
better if their elaboration was truly open. Otherwise there is always the 
uneasy feeling that money and market considerations take over technical merit. 

Best regards,

Even

(*) Hint: it is not. See my own comments of 
http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/2012-July/000166.html : 
Quoting 12-062r1, "While it would be possible to develop new versions of the 
OGC Web Services standards using a consistent framework and with support for 
JSON representations and a RESTful "binding", this will likely take significant 
time due to the unresolved REST-related discussion items, the current 
organization of OGC SWGs based on the individual standards and the 
fragmentation into separate standards. "