[OSGeo-Board] Re: OSGeo status regarding implementation of standards

[Gary Lang]

Paul,

I wouldn't contort our activities to avoid a low level of concern
expressed in a blog that was actually addressed by a one hour
conversation between Dave and myself. Until Dave himself tells us that
he's still concerned, I think we're now fine.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pramsey at refractions.net] 
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:11 AM
To: Arnulf Christl
Cc: OSGeo-Board; tmitchell at osgeo.org
Subject: [OSGeo-Board] Re: OSGeo status regarding implementation of
standards

Legal implications?

Firstly, the language about numbering and locking is just practical
stuff like software: if a numbered, non-changing baseline is not
established, it is not possible to build things on top of it.  Ask
FrankW if he would recommend people build products against the CVS
version of GDAL.

This is an open source project, the source just happens to be words in
this case, but like any software library people will reference it and
build other software on top of it.

I suppose if you want to drive this activity out, we can re-formulate it
at EOGEO.  Frankly, all that is needed is a neutral place for people to
collaborate and enough industry momentum and buy-in to make it relevant.
If OGC is jealous that you've managed that in under a year, well, too
bad. :)

P

On 3-Nov-06, at 8:00 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:

> Hi,
> I have been asked by the OGC whether OSGeo wants to become an active 
> standardization body. I said that OSGeo has set a high affinity for 
> standards in its charter but that it is currently not actively 
> developing them. Reading the page "Tile Map Service Specification" 
> speaks a different language though:
> From: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Tile_Map_Service_Specification
> This specification is currently in active revision, edits are accepted

> from any user at any time. Please join the mailing list 
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiling to discuss your ideas 
> before applying them to the draft. The specification will first move 
> from active revision to final review and then finally to numbered 
> specification, at which point it will be locked.
> Personally I am all in favor of a fast, easy, and truly open process 
> that considers technical aspects and goes about it pragmatically. But 
> we do not have an official statement regarding this. As long as we 
> have not considered this we should be careful proclaiming the above 
> 'standard' in the way we do because of all kings of legal 
> implications.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Best regards, Arnulf.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org For additional
commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org