<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">All,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The OGC Community standard is intended to be an endorsement of an existing, widely-used specification by a voluntary consensus-based standards organization. In such an endorsement, OGC membership is recognizing the value of a particular specification as being part of the OGC standards baseline and relevant for normative reference by the OGC. Numerous organizations (usually government agencies) require consensus-based standards to be part of their own standards baseline, and the Community standard process assists the promotion of standards that developed external to the OGC to be recognized as having a consensus endorsement.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">All this being said, the OGC will rely upon the originating organization to further evolve the specification and decide whether any revisions should be submitted to the OGC. Upon adoption by the OGC, the standard can receive Change Requests from anyone and these Change Requests will be passed to the source of the standard for consideration.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is a new process in the OGC, so we don’t yet have a feel for how successful or not the efforts may be.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best Regards,</div><div class="">Scott</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Scott Simmons</div><div class="">Executive Director, Standards Program</div><div class="">Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)</div><div class=""><div class="">tel +1 970 682 1922</div><div class="">mob +1 970 214 9467</div></div><div class=""><a href="mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org" class="">ssimmons@opengeospatial.org</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The OGC: Making Location Count…</div><div class=""><a href="http://www.opengeospatial.org" class="">www.opengeospatial.org</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 29, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Martin Isenburg <<a href="mailto:martin.isenburg@gmail.com" class="">martin.isenburg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hello Bruce,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I assume that your refer to the email exchanges that eventually led to this open letter</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter" class="">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No. These concerns are not addressed. The proposed adoption of the latest LAS 1.4 specification does - imho - *nothing* to address what the open letter was about. The OGC is merely taking the existing open, already widely used, and uncompressed LAS 1.4 specification from the ASPRS [1] and makes it a "community standard" of the OGC. This does *not* address the concern about fragmentation of the compressed LiDAR via the introduction of a proprietary "Optimized LAS" format by ESRI. Is it a "first step" ... ? Maybe, but I do not see how this leads to a second step ... especially given the opinion of the chair of the ASPRS LAS Working Group (see below). </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[1] <a href="http://www.asprs.org/a/society/committees/standards/LAS_1_4_r13.pdf" class="">http://www.asprs.org/a/society/committees/standards/LAS_1_4_r13.pdf</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There is complete lack of transparency and history keeping in the ASPRS LAS Working Group (LWG) that defines the LAS format. I am a member of the LWG and have repeatedly asked the chair to please follow the usual protocol of a standardization body. Currently all final decisions are made by the chair after a round of emails on which the 15 or so members are copied. Most of these members never participate in any discussion. The history of all decision making only exists in form of emails of the individual LWG members. This somehow works well when the chair makes only wise decisions, but fails when there is serious disagreement like in the "laser war of 2011" [2]. The LAS format is called an "ASPRS standard" which means little given how the LWG works but makes it looks really "legit" to the public eye.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[2] <a href="http://www.pobonline.com/articles/96260-proposed-las-1-4-spec-is-broken-says-lwg-member" class="">http://www.pobonline.com/articles/96260-proposed-las-1-4-spec-is-broken-says-lwg-member</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I was hoping with the OGC giving the LAS 1.4 format its "stamp of approval" the OGC would at least require some form of openness in the way the LAS standard is maintained by asking the ASRPS to make the LWG operate more like a proper standardization body. But that does not seem to be the case as evidenced by the email of the LWG chair copied below. So I wonder ... what is the point of making LAS 1.4 an "OGC community standard"? What does it accomplish? How do you want me to vote?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Maybe Howard Butler - also a member of the LWG - should weigh in here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Martin</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">=====================================</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">From: Lewis Graham <<a href="mailto:lgraham@geocue.com" class="">lgraham@geocue.com</a>></div><div class="">Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:14 AM</div><div class="">Subject: LAS to become OGC Community Standard</div><div class="">To: LAS Working Group Members<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Dear LAS Working Group –</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">The OGC approached ASPRS (Michael Hauk) regarding the LAS format becoming an OGC Community Standard. Though I am not entirely sure of the value of a community standard (not criticizing, just don’t know), the Community Standard status has no impact on the workings or flexibility of the LWG. </div><div class=""> </div><div class="">The summary points are:</div><div class="">· OGC would like to bring LAS 1.4 in as a Community Standard (CS)</div><div class="">· The format document can remain as is with the addition of a cover page and Intellectual Property Rights statements.</div><div class="">· The CS of LAS 1.4 would be a frozen snapshot of LAS. It would not be evolved by OGC. </div><div class="">· If LAS is to be updated by the OGC, it will be via the same mechanism – e.g. LAS 2.0 would be developed by ASPRS LAS Working Group (LWG)and then considered by OGC as a new Community Standard</div><div class="">· Questions regarding the Community Standard version of LAS 1.4 would be vectored to the LWG of the ASPRS. We never approve changes to a fielded standard that would byte someone. These questions are usually interpretation of fields (for example, what does “Return 0 of n” mean? Is this a warning level standard violation or a rejection level error?)</div><div class="">· The OGC is not concerned with the structure or processes used by the LWG</div><div class="">· ASPRS would maintain its copyright</div><div class="">· The LAS Working Group remains the keeper and evolver of LAS</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">The ASRPS Board of Directors (I am not a member of the BOD) voted to approve the adoption of LAS as an OGC Community Standard on Sunday, 11 September 2016.</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Best Regards,</div><div class="">Lewis</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">=====================================<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">From: Lewis Graham <<a href="mailto:lgraham@geocue.com" class="">lgraham@geocue.com</a>></div><div class="">Date: Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:24 PM</div><div class="">Subject: RE: LAS to become OGC Community Standard</div><div class="">To: Martin Isenburg <<a href="mailto:martin.isenburg@gmail.com" class="">martin.isenburg@gmail.com</a>></div><div class="">Cc: LAS Working Group Members</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hi Martin,</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Sure, for reposting.</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">[...]</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Usually someone takes their standard to the OGC and asks if it can become a “Community Standard.” I understand the OGC came to ASPRS in this case. </div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Seems completely benign to me in terms of the forward direction of LAS. </div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Best Regards,</div><div class="">Lewis</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Bannerman <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">Colleagues,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I recall a number of emails over recent years over concerns regarding LIDAR data formats.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also saw the OGC TC vote that is currently open (see below).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Have the issues that OSGeo members expressed a concern with been resolved with this version of the proposed spec?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bruce</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">=====</div><div class=""><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class="">This ballot is for recommendation to approve a new Community standard work item for LAS 1.4.</p><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class=""> <br class="m_-8037575444738071108webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class="">Abstract: LAS is a specification for a point cloud file format. It is primarily used for transmitting laser point cloud data (LiDAR) but can be used for any general 2D or 3D point oriented encoding. The LAS specification is a relatively compact binary encoding of point location and point attribute data. Rather than store attributes in referenced records, the light-weight attribute data of LAS is stored in the same record as the point data. LAS is widely implemented across the entire LiDAR community.</p><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class=""> <br class="m_-8037575444738071108webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class="">The LAS 1.4 Community standard justification document [16-139] can be downloaded from:</p><div style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class=""> <br class="m_-8037575444738071108webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class="">Therefore, the Technical Committee Chair has initiated a vote to recommend approval of a new Community standard work item for LAS 1.4.</p><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:Trebuchet,sans-serif" class="">This is a 45 day electronic vote. The vote will end on 2 February 2017.</p><div class="">=====</div></div></div><br class="">______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
Standards mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr class="">mailman/listinfo/standards</a><br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Standards mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org" class="">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>