[OSGeo-Discuss] The OSGeo response to the proposed "GeoServices REST API" document [was: Would you be concerned ...]
acuster at gmail.com
Fri May 10 10:40:34 PDT 2013
On 5/10/13 12:25 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Adrian Custer wrote:
>> On 5/9/13 2:33 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.
> Out of curiosity, how does this compare to the process by which KML
> became an OGC standard?
That was the first really contentious issue I experienced at the OGC. It
is related to the current situation in that the KML experience seems to
have encouraged ERSI to try to push GeoServices through.
However, I did not much care at the time so I did not follow the issues
and controversy. I gather there was a feeling that KML duplicated other
standards at the OGC and mixed data with presentation in a poorly
structured way. I also vaguely remember that there was more of a feeling
that Google really wanted to hand off the standard to the OGC. But
again, I am not sure about any of this; I have never even seen a KML
>> This is a good example of the limits of governance at the OGC. Really,
>> a standard should not pass when there is concerted opposition to it.
>> The process is designed to suspend when there is opposition (2 no
>> votes), in an effort to build consensus. However, the ultimate
>> decision is still a 50% + 1 vote; probably, it should be a
>> super-majority of some kind.
> I've always found the OGC process to be rather broken. But then I'm a
> big fan of the IETF approach - bottom up, "rough consensus and running
> code," a progression from experimental to recommended to mandatory, but
> only after a long incubation period - and don't even think of using the
> word standard until there are at least 2 interoperable implementations.
> Miles Fidelman
More information about the Discuss