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

Peter Baumann p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
Thu May 9 10:56:37 PDT 2013

On 05/09/2013 07:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
> 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
> thinking?).
> 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
> case.
> Regards,
> Tim Bowden
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

it's not only rejection in the letter, there is also a way forward that I took 
the liberty to suggest:

/The components making up the ESRI "Geoservice REST API" provide natural blocks 
assignable to the matching SWGs. As for Part 6 of the ESRI "Geoservice REST 
API", if to become a standard it needs to be discussed in the WCS.SWG for 
harmonization, clarification, and improvement. //

Dr. Peter Baumann
  - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
    mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
    tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
  - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
    www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
    tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130509/be8267a4/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list