[OSGeo-Discuss] Would you be concerned if the "GeoServices REST API" became an OGC standard?
stephan at meissl.name
Mon May 6 09:24:05 PDT 2013
being involved in both communities I read this thread with high
interest. I agree with the issues raised by Bruce, Jeroen, Daniel, etc.
I guess my main issue is adding a competing set of standards within OGC
without proper justification and thus weakening the overall position of OGC.
On 05/06/2013 05:11 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> I am also of the opinion that "single-vendor standards" such as KML and
> this GeoServices REST API are turning OGC into a rubber-stamping
> organization and this is not what the geospatial community needs. Don't
> get me wrong, it is good to see these openly published, but the
> publication should be by their owners (Google and ESRI in those case)
> and not be rubber-stamped by OGC.
> What the geospatial community needs is an organization that provides
> direction around a consistent set of standards that guarantee
> interoperability between interchangeable software components.
> The suite of WxS services built over the last 10-15 years is somewhat on
> the way of achieving this, even if some pieces still do not interoperate
> as smoothly as we wish. Is OGC trying to tell the world that it no
> longer believes in WxS?
> OGC and its members need to decide whether they want the OGC logo to be
> perceived as the "guarantee of interoperability", or just as a
> rubber-stamping organization with a large portfolio of inconsistent
> Whether your source is open or closed is out of the question here, so I
> am not sure that a statement from OSGeo matters unless it is to point at
> this obvious slippery slope in which OGC is falling (a movement which
> started with KML a few years ago).
> On 13-05-06 3:41 AM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
>> Having read this thread I support what has been said by Adrian, Bruce
>> and others. If anything, acceptance of a set of standards that
>> basically replicates what W*S standards already do will confuse
>> customers. Maybe that is exactly what esri hopes to achieve, it
>> definitely doesn't help our (the geospatial community) business. And
>> as Bruce states, it will have serious impact on the OGC credibility.
>> As OSGeo I can imagine that we then decide to start our own
>> standardization process and build a standards brand around OSGeo
>> products. Not a nice perspective, let's hope OGC won't go down that
>> On 6 mei 2013, at 01:08, bruce.bannerman.osgeo
>> <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My personal opinion is that if this proposal was accepted, it would
>>> be a bad move for OGC.
>>> Remember that OGC is a community and its Technical Committee
>>> membership are the people who vote on the acceptance of Standards.
>>> The TC comprises many different organisations.
>>> I do understand that OGC are trying to be inclusive in their
>>> processes and to try and cater for alternative approaches to a
>>> problem, much the same as OSGeo does in supporting multiple projects
>>> that essentially handle similar use cases (e.g. GeoServer, MapServer
>>> and Degree).
>>> I have also personally witnessed ESRI's commitment to helping to
>>> further the development of Open Spatial Standards through their work
>>> on OGC Working Groups and at OGC Technical Committee meetings.
>>> ESRI also have made a valid point in their response to the 'NO' vote
>>> for the GeoServices REST API that the OGC has already allowed
>>> alternate approaches with the acceptance of netCDF as a data format
>>> and KML as a combined data/presentation format.
>>> With the GeoServices REST API, I think that the approach proposed:
>>> - is very divisive for the OGC community.
>>> - essentially appears to propose an alternate way for working with
>>> spatial services that does not utilise or build on the W*S suite of
>>> services that have been developed through robust community processes
>>> for in excess of a decade.
>>> - does not provide REST bindings to the W*S suite of standards that
>>> have been widely implemented in a range of software.
>>> - will result in confusion within the user community that are trying
>>> to utilise 'OGC' services.
>>> If this approach were to be adopted, I believe that OGC will go too
>>> far down the alternate solution approach and will risk losing its
>>> public acceptance as one of the key leaders of open spatial standards.
>>> I'm interested in hearing other OSGeo members opinions as to how this
>>> proposal would affect their projects.
>>> Would you consider implementing the GeoServices REST API within your
>>> If you did, would you maintain support for both it and traditional
>>> W*S services?
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss