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

Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com
Mon May 6 14:25:47 PDT 2013

Hi all,

I agree with Andrea. In my opinion OGC should be building upon the WxS 
specifications, introducing REST and JSON with a round of new major 
It was already tough for us to explain WxS services to end users for the 
last 10 years. Adding new service specifications will not help us be 
convincing, since there will be a new question: "which standard should 
we use and why?"
Also, as a professional I would not expect customers, organizations and 
governments paying for implementations of both standards... this will 
eventually lead to a market split. I cannot believe that OGC would like 
something like that.


On 05/06/2013 06:45 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> All,
> I've followed this thread with interest, thanks for the insightful
> discussion.
> If I can spare my 2 cents, is that the OGC specifications are complex
> enough already, with differences in behavior in the various versions, that
> adding another set of competing standards is just going to increase
> confusion quite a bit, diluting the OGC position as a "reference" for
> standards to a point of no return.
> Several of the ideas in the REST GeoServices are good, yes, there is demand
> for REST geoservices, and yes, JSON is popular, yet, especially from the
> point of view of someone that participates to open source communities, it's
> sort of unbelievable that someone can come and impose something to be a
> standard as-is, no questions asked.
> It's ok for it to be a starting point, but to be something that is embraced
> at large it should be allowed to be pruned and modified to everybody's
> satisfaction.
> Also, I'm not sure here, but not building on top of the existing standards
> it will likely introduce new terminology, making it harder to talk about
> the services in a way that makes people understand each other. Adding a
> REST service on top of existing standards, such as WFS (as a new network
> binding) and GeoJSON would likely lower this risk significantly.
> About implementing it or not, I cannot speak for the GeoServer PSC, but we
> are normally open and pragmatic, so I doubt that if someone comes up with
> an implementation of the ESRI GeoServervices API we'd refuse it, and if it
> gets enough traction, it might well enter the core functionality. It's more
> about someone contributing the code, and the overall user community showing
> appreciation for it, than making a political statement.
> Cheers
> Andrea
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Angelos Tzotsos
Remote Sensing Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130507/0007cb41/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list