[Incubator] PyWPS incubation admittance

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sun Apr 25 17:33:33 EDT 2010

I think it will be valuable to have at least one of the WPS projects 
become OSGeo projects, if not all.

There are 3 Open Source WPS that I'm aware of:
* 52 North (Java based) 
* Zoo: http://www.zoo-project.org/ (C based) http://www.zoo-project.org/
* PyWPS (Python based)

Which ever project does gain the OSGeo stamp of approval will gain an 
advantage in user market share.
Also, projects wishing to reach users should consider bundling their 
software on the OSGeo LiveDVD (which is handed at at conferences around 
the world).

Has anyone produced a comparison of WPS client and server 
implementations? I'd be interested to see them published.
Ideally, I'd like to see a WPS comparison table developed, along the 
lines of those being developed for the GIS Desktop and Browser clients. 
Comparison tables help users decide upon technologies they should select.

Markus Schneider wrote:
> Hello,
> as announced several weeks ago, I would like to bring up the issue of 
> PyWPS incubation. As you may remember, I volunteered to act as the 
> incubation mentor. However, up until now, no decision has been made 
> with regard to PyWPS entering incubation in the first place.
> I followed the PyWPS mailing list for several months now and also 
> screened the relevant information on the projects homepage 
> (http://pywps.wald.intevation.org/) and the incubation application 
> (http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/337).
> I would like to share my observations / impressions on the state of 
> PyWPS with respect to our project evaluation criteria 
> (http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html):
> - Criteria -
> 1. The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects need 
> to specify their choice for a type of license).
> The license is GPL. The project is interested in having a dual-license 
> model, but that should not be a problem (as has been discussed in an 
> earlier PyWPS thread).
> 2. The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances.
> Yes. Judging based on the incubation application.
> 3. The project is "geospatial", or directly in support of geospatial 
> applications.
> As it is an implementation of OGC's WPS (Web Processing Service) 
> standard, this must be a yes: The WPS standard specifies a generic 
> protocol for executing geospatial processes.
> - Desirable -
> For the desirable properties, I can report the following:
> 1.  Open source software is already reasonably mature (working quality 
> code).
> Apparently. This is judged based on the questions on the PyWPS mailing 
> list and institutions/projects that are listed in the application to 
> use PyWPS.
> 2. Project already has a substantial user community.
> Apparently. Judging based on mailing list traffic.
> 3. Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.
> The project page/incubation application lists six official committers 
> and eight contributors in total.
> 4. Project members are aware of, and implements support for, relevant
> standards (ie. OGC, etc).
> Yes, WPS 1.0.0.
> 5. Project has linkages with existing foundation projects.
> Yes, it has direct support for GRASS GIS. Interacting with other OSGeo 
> software is possible as well (e.g. offering processes that are backed 
> by GDAL).
> 6. Project fills a gap related to software that the foundation supports.
> I think so. It seems to be the only Python-based WPS implementation 
> (at least at OSGeo). GeoServer and deegree offer Java-based WPS 
> implementations, however. (Sorry if I forgot anybody else...)
> 7. Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative fashion.
> Based on my observation and the incubation application, yes.
> 8. Project has contributions and interest from more than just one 
> company/organization.
> Yes. See http://pywps.wald.intevation.org/contributors/index.html
> 9. Project is willing to migrate some or all of its infrastructure 
> (code repository, web site, wiki, mailing list, etc) to foundation 
> support infrastructure, and to adopt a website style consistent with 
> the foundation.
> I don't know about this one for sure. The incubation application says 
> "We want to share the infrastructure [...]" as an answer to question 
> "Why is hosting at OSGeo good for your project?"
> Best regards,
> Markus

Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source

More information about the Incubator mailing list