[Board] OGC Relationship

[Michael P. Gerlek]

If I can infer from Jo's hipster position that no committment would be
made to OGC, then by all means, yes: let us carry on and see what
happens.
 
(how did this thread start anyway? :-)
 
-mpg 
 



________________________________

	From: Gary Lang [mailto:gary.lang at autodesk.com] 
	Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 11:15 AM
	To: Jo Walsh; Michael P. Gerlek
	Cc: board at lists.osgeo.org
	Subject: RE: [Board] OGC Relationship
	
	

	"Well, really i am just being a hippie here in "don't think
about
	it, just get on with doing things, try to make those things
beautiful
	and useful" mode. YMMV quite a lot, i suspect ;) "
	
	It might, but I think this is the right approach as well.
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From:   board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org on behalf of Jo Walsh
	Sent:   Sat 1/6/2007 4:13 AM
	To:     Michael P. Gerlek
	Cc:     board at lists.osgeo.org
	Subject:        Re: [Board] OGC Relationship
	
	On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:59:04AM -0800, Michael P. Gerlek
wrote:
	> [I pause to note that Raj's heart is in the right place here,
and
	> the MassMarketWG might become the exception to normal OGC
processes.
	> But we don't know how that works yet.  Hence current
discussion.]
	
	Right, here you have touched the point with a needle. Both OSGeo
and
	OGC are in the process of working out a more open model of
involvement.
	Raj personally is a superstar, and 'Mass Market' is where the
	OSGeo-community specification efforts have wound up, so focus
here?
	
	> OGC regularly passes specs upwards to ISO for what seems like
	> thumbs-up/down, almost pro-forma approval.  I'm not sure how
that
	> process actually works, but might that be a model worth
discussing?
	
	Nod, i refer you all again again to Jody's blog entry about
this:
	
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/jive/archive/2006/11/wms_tiling_or_w.html
	
	[[ The tiling "specification" is currently a bunch of hackers
bashing
	away at the problem. Standardization comes later, the document
will be
	submitted to the OGC where I imagine it will be treated as an
	extension to WMS (much like the SLD specification). ]]
	
	There *are* other avenues to 'open standardisation',
specifically
	http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/
	
	On the one hand this is a social negotiation between OSGeo/OGC.
	On the other this is a technical negotiation about best
practise.
	I know it's hard to unpick the two, but perhaps is useful if we
do.
	
	Well, really i am just being a hippie here in "don't think about
	it, just get on with doing things, try to make those things
beautiful
	and useful" mode. YMMV quite a lot, i suspect ;)
	
	cheers,
	
	
	jo
	_______________________________________________
	Board mailing list
	Board at lists.osgeo.org
	http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20070106/23907621/attachment.htm>