[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
raj at rajsingh.org
Mon Jul 16 14:25:23 PDT 2007
Also remember that OGC has made its Mass Market Working Group
discussion list public:
This is the best way for non-members to get in on certain
discussions, particularly the ones Jeroen mentions. That allows
individuals to put forth their opinions. A unified OSGeo opinion
would certainly carry more weight, so I think it's valuable to move
that discussion forward.
On Jul 16, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> A number of us have this same sort of conversation in the past, but
> we've never come up with anything that satisifies all concerned...
> Perhaps a BOF/Summit/Thingie at the conference in September to talk
> about this?
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Ticheler
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:12 PM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
> Hi all,
> Last week I attended the Open Geospatial Consortium Technical
> Committee (OGC-TC) meeting in Paris.
> For those not to familiar with this meeting, it consists of a
> series of Working Group (WG) meetings that mostly run around the
> development of specifications (or standards if you wish) dealing
> with geo-informatics. The most prominent specifications coming from
> OGC are Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS) and
> Geographic Markup Language (GML). There's a whole list of other
> specs available or under development. OSGEO projects work with a
> substantial number of them. See http://www.opengeospatial org for
> more details.
> With this email I would like to touch upon two issues that I think
> are relevant to OSGEO. I hope bringing this up can trigger some
> discussion on how OSGEO would best benefit from the OGC spec
> development process:
> 1- Discussions related to Google's KML and Web Map Context
> 2- Discussions related to a Tiled Web Map Service specifications
> There was discussion on the possibility that KML becomes an OGC
> specification and, more importantly, that it could be used to
> replace the wining Web Map Context (WMC) specification. A number of
> OSGEO projects use the Styled Layer Descriptors (SLD (symbology))
> specification and the WMC. There's a great deal of overlap between
> these and KML. It is likely in the interest of these projects to
> share their experience with OGC and see some of that reflected in
> future OGC specs.
> There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS specification. Such
> spec can have different forms, and could be conceived as a new spec
> or as an extension (or application profile) of a Web Map Service.
> Two approaches were presented and two other approaches were
> mentioned, among which the approach taken within the OSGEO community.
> Observing these discussions, my impression is that OSGEO has an
> important role to play in the further development of these OGC
> specs. We can obviously take the easy route and let OGC go its way.
> We could than come up with in-house, open specifications that will
> compete with OGC specs still under development. The development of
> the specs is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However,
> I feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a very
> positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can make sure
> experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC specs. The WMS-T is
> an obvious example of this. It was kind of frustrating to not see
> that experience properly represented at the WMS-WG.
> OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an expression of
> dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I think it might be time
> to establish a way to formally represent OSGEO in OGC. This could
> be through those OSGEO members that already hold a TC level
> membership to OGC (the logical first step I would think) and later
> possibly through a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC. Also, we
> could consider a focal point in OSGEO where specification
> development is discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of
> a Committee for instance. I'm hesitant to propose new Committees,
> but if there's enough interest to have a central coordination point
> dealing with standards and specs, it may make sense :-)
> Greetings from Rome,
> Jeroen Ticheler
> Tel: +39 06 57056041
> 42.07420°N 12.34343°E
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss