[OSGeo-Discuss] How open source and OGC/ISO can work together - GeoAPI example
jgarnett at refractions.net
Wed Jul 18 10:56:34 PDT 2007
I mentioned GeoAPI a couple of times as an example of a "bridge" between
open source software and the OGC / ISO standards process. I passed on an
informal report we got in our IRC meeting on Monday, here is an update
we got today.
Have a read of this email; and think if this level of involvement will
be enough for us. It may be easier then setting up a formal arrangement
- it has the strength of OSGeo making contributions in a format we do
well (ie code) and OGC making contributions in a format they do well (ie
large pdf documents and xml schema). Also note that the GeoAPI project
is not limited to Java projects.
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Hello all
> Sorry for being late, I have been in a rush for the past few days.
> There is a quite report about what happened at OGC meeting, and what could be
> our road map if peoples agree (at the very end of this email). First, a quick
> reminder of GeoAPI history:
> * At some point in the past, the OGC 01-009 implementation specification
> ("Coordinate Transformation Service Implementation Specification") was
> accompanied by a set of Java interfaces created by the OGC 01-009
> authors. Those interfaces were defined in the "org.opengis.cs",
> "org.opengis.ct" and "org.opengis.pt" packages.
> * An independent contributor offered in 2001 additional Java interfaces
> in the "org.opengis.cv", "org.opengis.gc" and "org.opengis.gp" packages
> derived from OGC 01-004 ("Grid Coverage Service Implementation
> * GeoAPI has been created in 2002 by James McGill in an effort to bring
> some open source projects (especially Geotools and Jump) to a common
> set of interfaces. While we used OGC interfaces (GeoAPI 1.0 was just
> a packaging of the above-cited org.opengis cs, ct, pt, cv, gc and gp
> packages), the GeoAPI project was formally independent from OGC.
> * About at the same time, a OGC working group, namely GO-1, had similar
> goals. The OGC GO-1 working group (leads by Polexis) was in touch with
> the GeoAPI community. In June 2004, we formally merged the projects. We
> wrote a charter (link below) and got it approved by a OGC vote, as OGC
> document 04-059.
> * The join effort between OGC GO-1 working group and GeoAPI community
> resulted in a rewrite of the referencing interfaces (for alignment
> with ISO 19111) and addition of geometry interfaces (ISO 19107).
> * GO-1 final (OGC 03-064r10) has been released almost one year later
> (May 4th, 2005) and approved as a OGC implementation specification.
> GeoAPI 2.0 has been released slightly after GO-1 (June 7th, 2005)
> in order to reflect the GO-1 state. Many GeoAPI 2.0 interfaces are
> explained in this OGC 03-064r10 document.
> * Polexis (now SYS Technologies) seems to have disengaged from GO-1/GeoAPI.
> I'm not aware of any progress in the GO-1 project since the OGC 03-064r10
> release in 2005. Consequently, GeoAPI lost its representative at OGC.
> * GeoAPI work continued, thanks to the GeoAPI community, but we were
> failing to report our progress at OGC. I did some attempts to bring
> "GeoAPI request for changes" at OGC in 2006, but failed either because
> the document was not posted on the OGC web site (none of us were OGC
> members), or because I was not able to attend to the OGC meetings.
> * At the OGC technical meeting at Edinburgh (June 30, 2006), OGC members
> voted the dissolution of GeoAPI working group on the basis that it was
> inactive. It was not a move against GeoAPI itself, just the normal
> procedure for a group that didn't reported any progress for 2 years.
> Maybe the apparent absence of activity was caused by the OGC's GeoAPI
> mailing list being totally silent; not all OGC members were aware that
> all our discussion happen on the SoureForge mailing list.
> * None of us in the GeoAPI community were aware of this dissolution. I
> learned this fact only in May 2007 from an other OGC member (Spot Image).
> I wrote to the OGC director and we decided (on his recommendation) to
> submit the GeoAPI request for changes at OGC anyway. We got a two hours
> slot on Monday, and Adrian explained the GeoAPI context to the members
> present. I presented the Request For Changes after that.
> * It was not possible to get a vote on the Request For Changes because
> the GeoAPI working group was not existent anymore. However we got a
> vote on the following motion:
> "The GeoAPI ad-hoc meeting proposes to the Open GIS Consortium
> Technical Committee to establish a GeoAPI Standards Working Group
> to revisit and revise the GeoAPI interfaces which expand the GO-1
> Implementation Specification (which is the OGC approved GeoAPI
> Implementation specification)."
> Moved by Martin Desruisseaux
> Seconded by Ron Lake
> * In order to form such a working group, we need at least 5 OGC members.
> Adrian and myself will be on this group. We need 3 additional members.
> Jody, is Refraction Research an OGC member? If yes would you like to
> be on this group? I don't think that it would involve much additional
> work compared to your current GeoAPI involvement, but it would make
> your involvement visible to OGC. If Stephane Nicoll accepts to be on
> this group too, it would be very nice.
> * After some informal discussion between Adrian and Carl Reed, we are
> going toward the following proposal:
> - Forget about GO-1.
> - As a working group, our task would be to produce a brand
> new specification. I suggest to call this new specification
> "GeoAPI 3.0".
> - Since we would start on new grounds, we have some freedom
> for cleaning some pending issues in GeoAPI. We are not too
> tied by the past. However I suggest to continue what we
> already do ("deprecate, then delete" cycle, document changes
> in RFC document when we can) as a respect for our users.
> - We could make GeoAPI 2.1, 2.2, etc. releases on our own as a
> transition toward GeoAPI 3.0, but we should make it very clear
> that they are not official OGC specifications. Only GeoAPI 2.0
> was and GeoAPI 3.0 would be, if approved by OGC members.
> Any comments, discussion, objections? Any volunteer for being member of OGC
> working group? I suggest that OGC members continue the discussion on the usual
> SourceForge mailing list (no secret mailing list).
More information about the Discuss