[OSGeo-Discuss] The OSGeo response to the proposed "GeoServices REST API" document [was: Would you be concerned ...]

Tim Bowden tim.bowden at mapforge.com.au
Thu May 9 10:33:54 PDT 2013

On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
> Hey Cameron, all,
>    * The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
>      alternative way forwards.

I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
better reception from the broader OSGeo community (with the diverse
viewpoints it typically has) if the proposal was more that a "take it or
leave it" (partial?) description of what ESRI has done and is going to
do anyway.  If there was at least some willingness to engage with the
broader community on interoperability within the standard (and how do
you have interoperability if you aren't willing to budge from a
pre-defined position anyway?).

Perhaps ESRI didn't realise their approach was going to come across with
an "up you" attitude (or maybe they did)?  The impression I've got it
that many people feel ESRI is treating the OGC as a "rubber stamp" body
(which very much implies arrogant contempt) regardless of the merits of
the proposal.  Hopefully I've got it wrong and ESRI really just botched
their approach on this one (why do I feel this is naive wishful

FWIW, I don't believe having an alternate incompatible standard must of
itself be a deal breaker, if the proposed standard genuinely represents
a viable attempt at interoperability.  After all, the wonderful thing
about standards is there are so many to choose from.  ;)  Lets just not
pretend it's about genuine interoperability unless that really is the

Tim Bowden

More information about the Discuss mailing list