[OSGeo-Board] questions about OGC membership

[Jo Walsh]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 02:54:34AM +0100, Arnulf Christl wrote:
> I do not think that OSGeo actually can be a member of OGC. It would look
> like the Southern Hemisphere joining the European Union. Huh? Exactly.
:)
 
> It has been suggested that individual OSGeo developers (contributors to
> OSGeo related projects including Edu and Data) could become member status
> of the OGC without direct cost (cash) to be able to join technical
> committee meetings, vote etc. We need to work out what OSGeo can provide
> in turn. Suggestions?

Um, so OSGeo developers already struggling to find spare time to put
into projects in which there's a lot of interest (the open source geo
book, the geodata repository) can give their time to the OGC, and then
the Foundation *owes* the OGC for that? This makes no sense to me.
Unless what is given is something that is anyway being made, or really
is visible strong benefit to the open source geospatial community.
  
> I will present OSGeo to the OGC Planning Committee on Friday with a set of
> slides.

Good for you, best of luck! 

> ((current discussion on simplified WFS lost itself in whether there is a
> need for WFS profiles))

It has always been a problem for me that OGC's culture seems so
inward-looking - that there are so many interlocking assumptions
needed to engage with their specifications. One has to be bought into
the worldview completely, working at least half time on keeping up with it. 

On a personal basis I was driven crazy by Simple because i sunk a fair
amount of time into it, by the time i left i was being told privately
that I had no right to participate without a full understanding of the
abstract model and several ISO specifications. Goodness knows it took
less time to implement Simple than it does to read an OGC specification. 

> if you want to give me some directions or advice please holler at me.

On an on-message presentation of OSGeo to OGC? On what kind of stance on 
a "special relationship" to adopt? 

I have emphasised that OSGeo community has been stresstesting what
happens to OGC Web Services when they really get out into wider use
and producing augmentations - TMS, or the versioning extensions that
geoserver are doing for WFS-T - if standards are more respectable when
they have several implementations, they are even more so when the
edges are stressed by broad usage. And focusing on lowering the bar for
non-expert users, making interfaces (both machine and human) simpler 
(GeoRSS support, hotbed of AJAX client collaboration). I remember that
Jody had some pragmatic things to say about the OSGeo-OGC connection:
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/jive/archive/2006/11/wms_tiling_or_w.html

"Interoperability" is a strange word, almost an anachronism - how can
one not be interoperable. I kind of prefer "interoptability", suggesting 
that everyone can see more of what everyone else is thinking...   

Er, I need coffee and so on, and you know my history of cynicism and 
mutual ridicule re. the OGC and I am probably the most detached from its
affairs of anyone here. I think OSGeo is basically doing well as it
is, that one could sink a lot of time into this through wanting to
help and not getting far, and a 'strategic ambiguity' for a while
longer might not be such a bad thing...

cheers,


jo