<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Concerns about consistency here and elsewhere are certainly issues that the OAB has and will take up. There is also a widespread consensus, I think, that multiple implementations are incredibly important for a standard specification to be a success. Any OGC member or group of members may propose almost anything. It is really up to the rest of the members whether a consensus develops to adopt what is proposed, and up to the wider community whether to make use of it.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Josh<br><div><br></div><div>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:restful-policy.swg-bounces+jolieberman=deloitte.com@lists.opengeospatial.org">restful-policy.swg-bounces+jolieberman=deloitte.com@lists.opengeospatial.org</a> [mailto:restful-<a href="mailto:policy.swg-bounces+jolieberman=deloitte.com@lists.opengeospatial.org">policy.swg-bounces+jolieberman=deloitte.com@lists.opengeospatial.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jeff Harrison<br>Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:57 PM<br>To: Even Rouault<br>Cc: <a href="mailto:oab@lists.opengeospatial.org">oab@lists.opengeospatial.org</a>; <a href="mailto:restful-policy.swg@lists.opengeospatial.org">restful-policy.swg@lists.opengeospatial.org</a>; <a href="mailto:standards@lists.osgeo.org">standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [RESTful-Policy.SWG] [OSGeo-Standards] Encodings and REST<br><br>Even,<br><br>This is an excellent point, one that likely echoes the questions many other have as well...<br><br>Even wrote: 'I had exposed my concerns about the lack of consistency of the new proposal with existing OGC standards. Reading<a href="http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/oab">http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/oab</a> , 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 (*)<br><br>WMTS was an example of how OGC standards could be amended to embrace REST. The new proposal takes a completely different route.'<br><br>Regards,<br>Jeff<br><br>Sent from my iPhone<br><br>On Oct 21, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Even Rouault <<a href="mailto:even.rouault@mines-paris.org">even.rouault@mines-paris.org</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 14:54:34, Arnulf Christl a écrit :<br><blockquote type="cite">Folks,<br>I neither followed the discussion closely not the decision process of<br>the SWG. Can somebody summarize the rationale of the Geoservices REST<br>API group for not implementing GeoJSON but going down another route?<br><br>Somehow it seems like OGC is becoming just yet another party in the<br>general noise of format proliferation. We did better in other areas,<br>how come we cannot stay on top of this one?<br><br>This is pretty clear language, how are we going to address it?<br><a href="https://twitter.com/vmx/status/259275792817741824">https://twitter.com/vmx/status/259275792817741824</a><br><br>Apparently this comment by Volker Mische (who we know as supportive to<br>the OGC) is receiving a lot of positive support in the broader<br>geospatial IT crowd. Ignoring is not a solution.<br></blockquote><br>Hi,<br><br>I'm unfortunately not very aware of the OGC processes, but will all the<br>comments that have been posted on<br><a href="http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/">http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/</a> in July and August 2012 be<br>answered, or did they just land in a black hole ? There were pretty good<br>points exposed by a great diversity of people, that shouldn't be ignored IMHO.<br><br>I had exposed my concerns about the lack of consistency of the new proposal<br>with existing OGC standards. Reading<br><a href="http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/oab">http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/oab</a> , I see that "Specifically,<br>the OGC Architecture Board works with the TC and the PC to insure architecture<br>consistency of the Baseline". I would be indeed very interested in hearing how<br>the new proposal is architecturely consistent with the baseline (*)<br><br>WMTS was an example of how OGC standards could be amended to embrace REST. The<br>new proposal takes a completely different route.<br><br>Finally, I second Volker on the lack of transparency of the process. It is<br>good that OGC standards are open when they are finished, but it would be much<br>better if their elaboration was truly open. Otherwise there is always the<br>uneasy feeling that money and market considerations take over technical merit.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Even<br><br>(*) Hint: it is not. See my own comments of<br><a href="http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/2012-July/000166.html">http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/2012-July/000166.html</a> :<br>Quoting 12-062r1, "While it would be possible to develop new versions of the<br>OGC Web Services standards using a consistent framework and with support for<br>JSON representations and a RESTful "binding", this will likely take significant<br>time due to the unresolved REST-related discussion items, the current<br>organization of OGC SWGs based on the individual standards and the<br>fragmentation into separate standards. "<br></blockquote></div></body></html>