[OSGeo-Discuss] regarding Standards on the beta website

Wed Aug 23 15:10:45 PDT 2017

Jim and others,

On Aug 23, 2017, at 4:51 PM, James Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com<mailto:klassen.js at gmail.com>> wrote:

Bob, Are you trying to differentiate direct support of standards vs indirect support via another package?

I was hoping to stay away from this conversation, but, yes, there is some of that in at least the GeoMOOSE project.  It was actually less blurry in the earlier version of GeoMOOSE than with the newer version in my mind.   There was more dependence on MapServer.

GeoMoose is a web client and I believe the current project page (at least as of when I was working on it at the FOSS4G code sprint) correctly states the supported standards.

We’ve had this conversation in the past, I think it went something like this, so we can put the OGC badge on the GeoMoose website for thier certification process being applied? . . .   :c)  I’m half serious with that question, and I think we could make a case for doing just that, but it’s still not 100%.  I understand the situation with MapServer as a service to GeoMoose, but what about the CACADE stuff when GeoMoose pulls from MapServer or other OGC services and acts as the translator to OGC services, where does that fit into this?  The client side of OGC communications is certainly a part of GeoMoose in some form.

While MapServer is commonly used along side GeoMoose and when it is the capabilities of the two cascade, but I believe what MapServer supports belongs on MapServer's project page, not GeoMoose's.

It’s true though that MapServer is the main OGC tool being used by GeoMoose currently, and it depends on it to a large degree.  But MapServer isn’t the only OGC service that GeoMoose can use.

bobb

On Aug 23, 2017 16:33, "Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)" <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us<mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>> wrote:
Jody,

I meant that sometime an application uses the Standards, but doesn’t really support them (per OGC specifications).  GeoMoose for example can read and write out WMS and WFS via MapServer.  And in it’s latest incarnation even read WFS directly.  Some of these capabilities adhere to the OGC spec’s for “supports”, but some don’t.

On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com<mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>> wrote:

Do you mean the difference between clients and servers? I would hope WMS support in OpenLayers is clearly distinct from WMS support in MapServer.

GeoMoose as an installation, serves up WMS/WFS via MapServer.  It can also act as (at least) a WFS client and read from WFS directly.

Can you clarify bobb, standards are confusing / intimidating enough as it is (especially for projects that implement a wall of them).

I’m just trying to caution against using blanket statements of support is all, and hopefully present some real world examples to back up my statements.

Ideally I would like to see projects that are certified by OGC place the correct logos on these pages.

I guess that’s where I’m going with this, GeoMoose has not gone through the process of certifing it’s OGC standards.  They have a very specific process to do this too, and based on that I’m saying that GeoMoose for one, would not be 100% compliant, as an example.  Some pieces could be though.

So we just say we can use those standards and have support for some of them vs having (100%) OGC compliance.

bobb

--
Jody Garnett

On 23 August 2017 at 08:47, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us<mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>> wrote:
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<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

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

“There’s no place like home”
        - Dorothy Gale, from the Wizard of Oz.

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

"I never had a policy; I have just tried to do my very best each and every day. “
- Abraham Lincoln

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170823/78416e6b/attachment.html>