<div dir="ltr">Hello Scott,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>The OGC Community standard is intended to be an endorsement of an existing, widely-used specification by a voluntary consensus-based standards organization.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your response. The LAS format perfectly fits that description for an "OGC Community standard" and I want to see it succeed, both in its current form as well as in its future updates. But I would object strongly to call the ASPRS working group that currently maintains it a "consensus-based standards organization". It more like a "discord-based format flight club" ... (-;</div><div><br></div><div>I was just looking back at a format suggestion that I had made to make the storage of the GPS time stamps more future proof that somehow was not at all considered for inclusion in the LAS 1.4 standard.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://groups.google.com/d/msg/lasroom/s3-OR4LP1IE/Jv9JoIvPCwAJ">http://groups.google.com/d/msg/lasroom/s3-OR4LP1IE/Jv9JoIvPCwAJ</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Why not? Because there are no proper working group protocol (other than some never-ratified document written by the chair overnight after me complaining that there was no protocol a few years back).</div><div><br></div><div>So I would hope that OGC will not only accept the current LAS 1.4 as a community standard (and that is what I intend to vote for [assuming I can] unless other OSGeo members who are represented by this vote are in vehement disagreement) but that OGC will also encourage ASRPS to maintain this "de-facto" standard in a more transparent manner in the future (in whatever form such an encouragement can happen) ...</div><div><br></div><div>Regards from Singapore,</div><div><br></div><div>Martin</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>Best Regards,</div><div>Scott</div><div><br><div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div>Scott Simmons</div><div>Executive Director, Standards Program</div><div>Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)</div><div><div>tel <a href="tel:(970)%20682-1922" value="+19706821922" target="_blank">+1 970 682 1922</a></div><div>mob <a href="tel:(970)%20214-9467" value="+19702149467" target="_blank">+1 970 214 9467</a></div></div><div><a href="mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org" target="_blank">ssimmons@opengeospatial.org</a></div><div><br></div><div>The OGC: Making Location Count…</div><div><a href="http://www.opengeospatial.org" target="_blank">www.opengeospatial.org</a></div><div><br></div></div><br class="gmail-m_-5114049888488351973Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="gmail-m_-5114049888488351973Apple-interchange-newline">
</div><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 29, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Martin Isenburg <<a href="mailto:martin.isenburg@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.isenburg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_-5114049888488351973Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Hello Bruce,<div><br></div><div>I assume that your refer to the email exchanges that eventually led to this open letter</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<wbr>LIDAR_Format_Letter</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>[1] <a href="http://www.asprs.org/a/society/committees/standards/LAS_1_4_r13.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.asprs.org/a/<wbr>society/committees/standards/<wbr>LAS_1_4_r13.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>[2] <a href="http://www.pobonline.com/articles/96260-proposed-las-1-4-spec-is-broken-says-lwg-member" target="_blank">http://www.pobonline.com/<wbr>articles/96260-proposed-las-1-<wbr>4-spec-is-broken-says-lwg-<wbr>member</a></div><div><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>Maybe Howard Butler - also a member of the LWG - should weigh in here.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Martin</div><div><br></div><div>==============================<wbr>=======</div><div><br></div><div><div>From: Lewis Graham <<a href="mailto:lgraham@geocue.com" target="_blank">lgraham@geocue.com</a>></div><div>Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:14 AM</div><div>Subject: LAS to become OGC Community Standard</div><div>To: LAS Working Group Members<br></div><div><br></div><div>Dear LAS Working Group –</div><div> </div><div>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> </div><div>The summary points are:</div><div>· OGC would like to bring LAS 1.4 in as a Community Standard (CS)</div><div>· The format document can remain as is with the addition of a cover page and Intellectual Property Rights statements.</div><div>· The CS of LAS 1.4 would be a frozen snapshot of LAS. It would not be evolved by OGC. </div><div>· 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>· 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>· The OGC is not concerned with the structure or processes used by the LWG</div><div>· ASPRS would maintain its copyright</div><div>· The LAS Working Group remains the keeper and evolver of LAS</div><div> </div><div>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> </div><div>Best Regards,</div><div>Lewis</div></div><div><br></div><div>==============================<wbr>=======<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>From: Lewis Graham <<a href="mailto:lgraham@geocue.com" target="_blank">lgraham@geocue.com</a>></div><div>Date: Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:24 PM</div><div>Subject: RE: LAS to become OGC Community Standard</div><div>To: Martin Isenburg <<a href="mailto:martin.isenburg@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.isenburg@gmail.com</a>></div><div>Cc: LAS Working Group Members</div><div><br></div><div>Hi Martin,</div><div> </div><div>Sure, for reposting.</div><div> </div><div>[...]</div><div> </div><div>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> </div><div>Seems completely benign to me in terms of the forward direction of LAS. </div><div> </div><div>Best Regards,</div><div>Lewis</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Bannerman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank">bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.<wbr>com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Colleagues,</div><div><br></div><div>I recall a number of emails over recent years over concerns regarding LIDAR data formats.</div><div><br></div><div>I also saw the OGC TC vote that is currently open (see below).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Have the issues that OSGeo members expressed a concern with been resolved with this version of the proposed spec?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Bruce</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=====</div><div><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:trebuchet,sans-serif">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"> <br class="gmail-m_-5114049888488351973m_-8037575444738071108webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:trebuchet,sans-serif">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"> <br class="gmail-m_-5114049888488351973m_-8037575444738071108webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:trebuchet,sans-serif">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"> <br class="gmail-m_-5114049888488351973m_-8037575444738071108webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:trebuchet,sans-serif">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">This is a 45 day electronic vote. The vote will end on 2 February 2017.</p><div>=====</div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Standards mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/standards</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Standards mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/standards</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>