[OSGeo-Discuss] Would you be concerned if the "GeoServices REST API" became an OGC standard?

[Anne Ghisla]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:24:05 +0200
Stephan Meißl <stephan at meissl.name> wrote:

> All,
> 
> 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.

Hello all,

I share most of the points raised in this discussion, and could not
have said them better.

There is an agenda item about this topic at next Board meeting (9th of
May):
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-05-09

so I'd like to collect the opinion of as most OSGeo members as possible.

Stephan, Adrian: is there an effective way for OSGeo to address a
statement to OGC, beside the official requests for comments and our
Discuss list? 

Thanks for your thoughts,
Anne

> cu
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 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
> > standards.
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 13-05-06 3:41 AM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
> >> All,
> >> 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 route.
> >> Jeroen
> >>
> >> On 6 mei 2013, at 01:08, bruce.bannerman.osgeo
> >> <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Cameron,
> >>>
> >>> 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 projects?
> >>>
> >>> If you did, would you maintain support for both it and traditional
> >>> W*S services?
> >>>
> >>> Bruce

-- 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Aghisla
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130506/5b08d296/attachment.pgp>