[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development

[Lorenzo Becchi]

Jeroen, all, very important thread to me too.

generic questions:
- what would it mean to create an OGC Committee?
- is it an overhead for the board?
- will there be a board member to support this Commitee? is this needed?
- does it mean to subscribe as OSGeo to OGC? how much does it cost?

I think every OSGeo project is more or less supporting at least one OCG 
standard. New standards has been created too under OSGeo umbrella and it 
would be great to present them and make them officially OGC.
This will strength interoperability between OSGeo softwares and other 
softwares. Between OSGeo softwares and OSGeo softwares. Between ... I 
love interoperability!
:-)

ciao
Lorenzo



Jody Garnett wrote:
> 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:
>> acuster: Martin found out a week before that the working group had 
>> been disolved,
>> acuster: which we weren't sure what it meant.
>> acuster:
>> 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:
>> 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:
>> 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:
>> acuster: We passed a motion to ask the Technical Committee to let us 
>> form the
>> acuster:
>> acuster: GeoAPI Standards Working Group
>> acuster:
>> 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:
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss