[OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Standards] Live DVD and OGC standards

[Stefan Keller]

Hi Carl

2013/7/8 Carl Reed <creed at opengeospatial.org>:
> The idea that the OGC process would significantly change something like GeoRSS is untrue.

I would like to slightly disagree here and point to the ongoing
GeoPackage standardization.
Referring to the initial question, GeoPackage with SQLite/Spatialite
"format" would have a chance to become "the Shapefile of the future".
The OGC just recently had the chance to adopt this existing encoding -
but unfortunately voted against in favor of an own spec.
To be fair to OGC (which I respect) I'd have to say that such
political decisions happen to most standardization bodies.

Yours, Stefan


2013/7/8 Carl Reed <creed at opengeospatial.org>:
> Allan -
>
> I respectfully disagree with your comment regarding the authors not wanting to bring GeoRSS into the OGC. I know that Raj, myself and other original authors would support bringing GeoRSS into the OGC as is.
>
> The idea that the OGC process would significantly change something like GeoRSS is untrue. A good recent example is Open GeoSMS. That candidate standard was developed externally and submitted into the OGC. The normative content was not changed at all other than making one tag consistent with some IETF RFCs (HELD, LoST, etc). We also separated the normative text from the informative examples (primer) which made the standard very short and easier to understand. Additional "eyes" on a document does not necessarily mean any normative change but does mean improvement to the document (grammar, wording, clarity, etc).
>
> Cheers
>
> Carl
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnulf Christl" <arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net>
> To: standards at lists.osgeo.org, "TC Discuss" <tc-discuss at lists.opengeospatial.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 9:11:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [OSGeo-Discuss] Live DVD and OGC standards
>
> On 08.07.2013 14:14, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
>> Hi Allan,
>>
>>> The counter-example is actually GeoTIFF, which was proposed
>>> as an OGC format a long, long time ago, by the original
>>> authors of the spec. At the time, it was rejected
>>> specifically because the TC felt that OGC should not be
>>> standardizing file specs, but rather should be standardizing
>>> interfaces.
>>
>> Ironic, because the strength of the Web is based on 'file' specs.  The
>> geo community needs to think less about interfaces and more about
>> how to communicate state through "files".
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>
> Peter,
> so true, I couldn't agree more. Why is it that there is a perception
> that the OGC should not work on data formats but only interfaces? Is
> this still the case? With GML and KML there are two strong existing data
> standards. GeoPackage is not exactly "just" a media format but ships
> with code - an ideal package so to say, and by any means not just an
> interface standard.
>
> GeoRSS and GeoJSON would not be hard to go forward with but for some
> reason it never happened.
>
> Cheers,
> Arnulf
>
> --
> Arnulf Christl (Executive Director)
> Open Source Geospatial Software, Data and Services
> http://www.metaspatial.net
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards