[Board] OGC Relationship

Mon Jan 8 18:23:25 PST 2007

Hrm thought I sent a reply.  Though I was on webmail those days, so 
something might have went awry.

 > GeoRSS is the only one that's really a standard.

 > TMS and WMS Tiling Client recommendation are the two that could go in
 > next.  I'd like to do a simple features for JSON.

 > Before OSGeo people mostly just deferred to OGC.  But there has been a
 > build up of frustration and I think many OSGeo people are less
 > involved than they used to be.

 > C

Gary Lang wrote:
> My curiousity is still alive about this... 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Gary Lang
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:00 PM
> To: Chris Holmes
> Cc: board at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: RE: [Board] OGC Relationship
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Do we have a list of specs/standards that OSGeo members/projects have
> created?
> 
> Gary
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Holmes [mailto:cholmes at openplans.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:35 AM
> To: Gary Lang
> Cc: Frank Warmerdam (External); board at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [Board] OGC Relationship
> 
> I'm +1 on all this.
> 
> I am sort of on the side of OSGeo being a lightweight, and more
> importantly _open_ place to make specs.  But I'm of the camp that we
> should _start_ specs, and then transition them to OGC.  The big problem
> with OGC is that they don't keep things open from the start, the
> advantage of being a member is you get a 'head start' on implementing
> specs, you get to see the 'private' area.  So as long as they're fine
> with us starting things in the open and putting them in to OGC process
> when appropriate I'm good with us stating that we're not 'in the
> standards business'.
> 
> Chris
> 
> Gary Lang wrote:
>> "I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return.  I suspect ultimately
> 
>> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not 
>> become a a "standards development" organization.  This avoids 
>> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they might 
>> consider competition."
>>
>> >From talking with David, I think is exactly what we would usefully
>> offer, and for two reasons:
>>
>> a) we're not in the standards business. It's not in our top 
>> priorities, last I looked
>> b) exactly what you said - "avoids duplication, confusion in the 
>> marketplace"
>>
>> If a) is true, then providing comfort and clarity around b) seems a 
>> no-brainer.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>> [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam
>> (External)
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:03 AM
>> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
>> Subject: [Board] OGC Relationship
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I'm taking the liberty of moving (at least part) of this discussion to
> 
>> the public board list.
>>
>> I am favorable on the idea of a formal liason relationship with OGC 
>> though I don't consider it particularly critical to us or them since 
>> there is already extensive cross membership and cross pollination.
>>
>> If we are to have a formal liason relationship, one benefit I would 
>> like to see is the ability for us give some developers access to 
>> working OGC documents, and for those developers to be involved in OGC 
>> testbeds, and working groups as OSGeo representatives.  I believe the 
>> OGC portal allows members to setup accounts for individuals to access
> the portal.
>> We could manage a list of developers-with-access via this mechanism, 
>> with the understanding that we would never have more than some fixed 
>> number of developers (or users really) so authorized.  I think even 
>> doing this for 5-10 would be plenty since most OSGeo project folks 
>> with an interest in OGC work already have access through corporate 
>> memberships.
>>
>> I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return.  I suspect ultimately 
>> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not 
>> become a a "standards development" organization.  This avoids 
>> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they might 
>> consider competition.
>>
>> I'd be agreeable with this, but it must be understood that 
>> self-organizing working groups within and between OSGeo projects are 
>> likely to develop specifications such as GeoRSS, or the web tile 
>> specification whether we encourage it or not, and I don't want to be 
>> in the position of discouraging that.  So we must be careful that such
> 
>> activities are not precluded.
>> At
>> most I think the board could offer to not develop and support our own 
>> standards development process - understanding that we won't supress it
> 
>> either.
>>
>> The other angle might be some sort of more active involvement of OSGeo
> 
>> projects in OGC testbeds and other IE efforts.  However, it is hard 
>> for us to force project involvement.  It might be appropriate for the 
>> foundation to provide some modest supporting funding for project 
>> involvement in OGC testbeds and interoperability experiments.  For 
>> instance, providing travel funding.
>>
>> Note that there are at least a few people who would like to see OSGeo 
>> become a sort of light weight agile standards development
> organization.
>> I'm not keen on that, but it might be prudent to give these folks a 
>> chance to make their case.
>>
>> Best regards,
> 
> --
> Chris Holmes
> The Open Planning Project
> http://topp.openplans.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:1003,45a2f76f239814750375898!
> 

-- 
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cholmes.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 269 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20070108/826021bd/attachment.vcf>