<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi all,<br>
<br>
I agree with Andrea. In my opinion OGC should be building upon the
WxS specifications, introducing REST and JSON with a round of new
major versions.<br>
It was already tough for us to explain WxS services to end users
for the last 10 years. Adding new service specifications will not
help us be convincing, since there will be a new question: "which
standard should we use and why?" <br>
Also, as a professional I would not expect customers,
organizations and governments paying for implementations of both
standards... this will eventually lead to a market split. I cannot
believe that OGC would like something like that.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Angelos<br>
<br>
<br>
On 05/06/2013 06:45 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+nxMTs9s4ugyW5Abtc5-oyLgjtSsOqYkWJTRedPDf2wHHExUQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All,
I've followed this thread with interest, thanks for the insightful
discussion.
If I can spare my 2 cents, is that the OGC specifications are complex
enough already, with differences in behavior in the various versions, that
adding another set of competing standards is just going to increase
confusion quite a bit, diluting the OGC position as a "reference" for
standards to a point of no return.
Several of the ideas in the REST GeoServices are good, yes, there is demand
for REST geoservices, and yes, JSON is popular, yet, especially from the
point of view of someone that participates to open source communities, it's
sort of unbelievable that someone can come and impose something to be a
standard as-is, no questions asked.
It's ok for it to be a starting point, but to be something that is embraced
at large it should be allowed to be pruned and modified to everybody's
satisfaction.
Also, I'm not sure here, but not building on top of the existing standards
it will likely introduce new terminology, making it harder to talk about
the services in a way that makes people understand each other. Adding a
REST service on top of existing standards, such as WFS (as a new network
binding) and GeoJSON would likely lower this risk significantly.
About implementing it or not, I cannot speak for the GeoServer PSC, but we
are normally open and pragmatic, so I doubt that if someone comes up with
an implementation of the ESRI GeoServervices API we'd refuse it, and if it
gets enough traction, it might well enter the core functionality. It's more
about someone contributing the code, and the overall user community showing
appreciation for it, than making a political statement.
Cheers
Andrea
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Angelos Tzotsos
Remote Sensing Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos">http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos</a></pre>
</body>
</html>