[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development
jgarnett at refractions.net
Mon Jul 16 15:33:44 PDT 2007
Thanks for the update Jeroen - going to add one more to your list...
Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
> 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
3-Discussions related to the GeoAPI working group that was formed
For additional information I am going to quote todays GeoTools meeting
(where we got a status update):
> acuster: GeoAPI went to the OGC conference in Paris
> acuster: ...and successfully dodged the rain.
> acuster: Martin found out a week before that the working group had
> been disolved,
> acuster: which we weren't sure what it meant.
> acuster: We went to try to push many changes since 2.0 through so as to
> acuster: make two new releases, the compatible 2.1 and the client
> breaking 3.0.
> acuster: Martin and I gave a talk.
> acuster: I waved my hands about what GeoAPI was to a fairly full room
> 20-30 people;
> acuster: seemed well received.
> acuster: Martin started asking the room for their opionions on change
> number 1;
> acuster: total silence.
> acuster: No one had read the doc or felt qualifed to comment.
> acuster: So he went through and summarized the proposals,
> acuster: which was well received: they liked the rigour, they liked
> the idea.
> acuster: We passed a motion to ask the Technical Committee to let us
> form the
> acuster: GeoAPI Standards Working Group
> acuster: which, on thursday they accepted. The group will eventually
> propose GeoAPI as
> acuster: its very own implementation standard. (When we return to GO-1
> territory we will
> acuster: presumably deprecate the old spec and offer our own).
> acuster: So now:
> acuster: 1) we will need volunteers to sit on the working group
> acuster: 2) we will need to stay active and propose one set of changes
> at least a year.
> acuster: If we do, in six months or so we could propose GeoAPI 3.0 as
> the base for the
> acuster: standard and would work to amend and extend the spec thereafter.
More information about the Discuss