[OSGeo-Discuss] regarding Standards on the beta website

[Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)]

All,

“Support for” and “able to use” should be separate criteria in the OGC capabilities (I think) as well.

bobb


On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com<mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>> wrote:

In our case, nesting won't help (if project XXX selects "OGC" as its standards support in the wordpress backend, the reader of our site will assume that all OGC standards are met by project XXX - so yes I agree that the best thing is to delete the single "OGC" option.

As for other "standards", we will need to specify that somehow.

Possibly we can specify this directly in the description?  For example:

 Web Processing Service (WPS)

   would become:

 OGC: Web Processing Service (WPS)


and

 Georeferenced Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF)

    would become:

 Other: Web Processing Service (WPS)


thoughts?

-jeff





On 2017-08-22 3:22 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
Note that the issue here is not nested or not; the issue is that we must be careful with the use of the word "standard" on our new site.  -jeff
On 2017-08-22 3:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Never mind, you can have nesting, so OGC can contain WFS, WMS, WCS, etc...

--
Jody Garnett

On 22 August 2017 at 11:09, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com<mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com> <mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>> wrote:

    You can click on the number, in this case 11, and see a list of the
    projects implementing the OGC standard. I am deleting it now...

    --
    Jody Garnett

    On 22 August 2017 at 10:17, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com<mailto:even.rouault at spatialys.com>
    <mailto:even.rouault at spatialys.com>> wrote:

        __

        On mardi 22 août 2017 14:07:04 CEST Jeff McKenna wrote:

        > Many of these don't make any sense to me, if you ask me my opinion.  We

        > should be using the list of OGC standards and entering them into

        > wordpress, and not allowing editors to edit/add new non-standards.  But

        > that is all my own opinion :)  Then we can link to these standards.  As

        > of now anyone can create a 'standard' and post it on the beta site,

        > seems very odd to me.

        Just a remainder that OGC is not the only source of standards.
        For example, GeoJSON is IETF RFC 7946 for example (and before
        last year, was a community standard). GeoTIFF can also be
        considered as a defacto standard, etc.. You have also the ISO
        standards for metadata, etc...

        Probably a loose definition for standards could be a
        specification available somewhere (potentially behind a paywall
        like ISO...), and implemented by at least several software/vendors.

        Even

         >

         > Is my opinion here too strong? For now I chose just to edit the

         > descriptions for all of these 'standards', valid or not.

         >

         > What do you prefer?

         >

         > -jeff

         >

         > On 2017-08-22 1:59 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:

         > > Thanks jeff, I just noticed that work had been done in the
        GeoServer

         > > meeting :) We also spotted one standard "OGC" which does
        not make sense.

         > >

         > > Do you think it is worthwhile linking to these standards?

         > >

         > >

         > >

         > > --

         > > Jody Garnett

         > >

         > > On 22 August 2017 at 09:42, Jeff McKenna
        <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com<mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
        <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>

         > >

         > > <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
        <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>> wrote:

         > > Since we have so many website 'editors' (currently 84),
        please if

         > > you do create a new "standard" (double-quote use is on
        purpose, as

         > > many of these are not actual standards) when you are
        editing your

         > > project page, please let me know and I will edit the new
        standard

         > > and add a description - I have just went through all of these

         > > "standards" and set descriptions for each of the 27
        "standards".

         > >

         > > For example:

         > >   (WPS)

         > >

         > >     will now appear on the project pages as:

         > >

         > >    Web Processing Service (WPS)

         > >

         > > This consistency makes it much easier to read for new users
        to our

         > > site.

         > >

         > > thanks all!

         > >

         > > -jeff

         >

         > _______________________________________________

         > Discuss mailing list

         > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org> <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>

         > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
        <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>

        --
        Spatialys - Geospatial professional services

        http://www.spatialys.com


        _______________________________________________
        Discuss mailing list
        Discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org> <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
        https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
        <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."
- George Bernard Shaw



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170823/126b80c5/attachment.html>