[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [OSGeo-Standards] Re: [Board] Open Source and Open Standards White Paper

[Noli Sicad]

Is Geonode fits into for "Open Data" category? If it is, why not
mention it in the document.

http://geonode.org/

"GeoNode is an open source platform that facilitates the creation,
sharing, and collaborative use of geospatial data. The project aims to
surpass existing spatial data infrastructure solutions by integrating
robust social and cartographic tools".

Noli

On 4/15/11, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Arnulf,
> Sorry for the delayed review, and rather messy use of email in applying
> my review comments:
>
> ====
>
> I assume that the target audience for this white paper is:
> * People who don't understand the difference between "Standards" and
> "Open Standards"
> * People who don't understand the difference between "Proprietary
> Software", "Freeware", "Open Source"
> * People who may understand the terms "Open Source" and "Open Standards"
> but don't appreciate the strengths (and weaknesses) of these models over
> the alternatives.
>
> As a general comment, I feel that much of this paper uses terms which
> are only understood by seasoned developers who already understand what
> Open Source and Open Standards are, and as such I feel that the paper is
> "preaching to the converted". For instance, there are concepts which are
> introduced, like the Open Sourced development practices, which are left
> hanging without an explanation. A reader not familiar with Open Source
> will be left wondering "so why should I care about these practices". I
> suggest that if these concepts are introduced they need to be expanded
> upon and describe why they are important.
>
> ====
>
> Further are some more specific comments:
>
> * 1st Introduction paragraph:
> This should be concise, and describe what the white paper is about. It
> is not the place to reference source material. It needs to include a
> sentence or two describing what the OGC and OSGeo organisations are.
> Of note: I have been at many geospatial trade shows and almost always
> talk to a few people who don't know what the OGC is, or what OSGeo is.
>
> * Under "Open Standards":
> ** I feel the first few paragraphs should define what an Open Standard
> is in the first paragraph before expanding.
> ** I feel that the section "OGC's position regarding Open Source
> Software" does a better job of describing importance of standards than
> this section.
> ** The list of criteria for a standard is good. I'd like to see each one
> of these points expanded on, and provide a description of why that
> criteria is important. In particular, I suggest that a counter example
> will usually benefit the description. Eg: Explain the limitations with a
> company publishing an API then calling it a standard?
> ** After reading this section, someone should understand why it is
> important to use Open Standards. I'd expect to see discussion of
> Inter-Operability, Reduced cost of data processing, Reduced long term
> maintenance cost, reduced risk due to obsolescence of products, reduced
> risk of vendor lock in.
> ** I've recently been refuting claims (at a National Government Policy
> level) that the ESRI REST API is an Open Standard because REST is an
> open standard. While I don't suggest picking on this as an example, it
> would be valuable if the reader can understand the difference between
> extensions to a base standard, and an overlying API.
>
>
> * In "Proprietary Software", I suggest that you don't pull out "java" as
> a specific example. It is too "down in the the weeds" for this type of
> high level document, and will likely confuse rather than help readers.
> If the java issues are to be explained, then much more detail should be
> included about the specific java case, and I don't think that is
> appropriate here.
>
> * In "Open Data", I think this section requires a stronger statement
> about what Open Data is. We should state what we believe "Open Data" to
> mean. The Creative Commons licence should be mentioned, and note how it
> is applicable to documents with just a few authors. We should note how
> Open Street Map is moving away from Creative Commons due to the
> practical limitations associated with crediting thousands or millions of
> authors, as is often the case with geospatial data sets.
>
> * In "Similarities and differences":
> ** terms such as “benevolent dictator” and “rough consensus” should be
> explained if they are to be used.
> ** IPR accronym should be expanded.
> ** I feel the discussion of the OGC "Reference Architecture" is
> wishy-washy. We have some very clear guidelines about what is Open
> Source and what is not (as explained above). Either say that the
> Reference Architecture is Open Source, or don't mention it.
>
> * OSGeo's position regarding Open Standards:
> ** Re: "... ideally simply [standards] because they are good." "good"
> needs to be expanded if this statement is to be made. Why are simple
> standards good? I think this statement should be dropped, or else it
> needs a paragraph or two discussing the pros of a comprehensive standard
> vs the pros of a simple standard. I think the answer to this question is
> more than "simple is the best version of a standard in all cases". I
> think it would be closer to "it is preferable that all standards, even
> complex standards, include a simple mandatory core version of the
> standard which is easy to implement which leads to widespread adoption
> of the standard."
>
> * Memorandum of Understanding:
> ** I assume the 6 OGC memberships are for "OSGeo members"? If so, this
> should be mentioned.
>
> * Please be consistent with capitalisation: Either ("open source" and
> "open standards") or ("Open Source" and "Open Standards").
>
>
> On 15/04/2011 4:55 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>> Folks,
>> please be so kind and give this paper a moment of your attention:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Source_and_Open_Standards
>>
>> There is still a lot of confusion in people as to what an Open
>> Standard is and what Open Source is. Even within the educated
>> community of OSGeo there are very different positions wrt to standards
>> and what an Open Standards should be. It ranges from "standards suck
>> and prevent innovation" to "standards are the only way out of the
>> misery of the data silos".
>>
>> The same is true to what the educated part of the OGC community thinks
>> about Open Source ranging from... well you know. No need to repeat here.
>>
>> Therefore OGC and OSGeo are interested to find a common position on
>> Open standards and Open Source and if we don't disagree too badly this
>> will become a joint white paper. Please give it a pass and comment if
>> you think something is seriously wrong.
>>
>>
>> On 04/13/2011 09:42 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf)<seven at arnulf.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>> as discussed on IRC we have further developed the article on Open
>>>> Source and
>>>> Open Standards:
>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Source_and_Open_Standards
>>>>
>>>> It would be great if you could give it a pass
>>>
>>> I have done a few edits (see history).
>>>
>>> Markus
>>
>> Thanks Markus,
>> anyone else from the board with comments? The page had 100 views in
>> the past two days and if no one else follows up with comments I
>> consider this to be generally accepted.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arnulf.
>>
>> PS:
>> I am sure that as soon as we publish it the usual die hards will start
>> to scream at the top of their lungs :-) but we can probably not do
>> much more than we did, can we?
>>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Solutions Manager
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>