[Live-demo] [OSGeo-Standards] OGC Standard compliance listed on OSGeo-Live docs?

Tue Oct 29 13:01:10 PDT 2013

Hi Luis,
I'm expanding this conversation to the osgeo-live email list, to give 
others within the osgeo community the opportunity to comment.

Regarding demonstration of OGC compliance, I suggest we introduce icons 
in a similar style to the icons used on OSGeo Advocate pages to explain 
experience:

OSGeo board.pngOSGeo charter.png OSGeo chair.png OSGeo psc.png
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Cameron_Shorter

I suggest we could use a OGC icon, with superimposed words:
<Std><Version>
<ComplianceLevel>

Eg:
SOS2.0
Implemented

CSW2.0.2
Reference

WFS1.1.0
PassNotCertified

WMS1.3.0
Certified

A project could have a string of icons, if the project has implemented 
multiple standards. These icons would link to a page which describes 
these terms in more detail.

To populate this information, we rely on a representative from each 
project to write project documentation, in line with our writing 
guidelines. I'd suggest that it would be good for an OGC representative 
to also review these docs to verify the OGC statements are correct. This 
need only be done once every 6 months during the documentation review 
cycle of a release.

On 29/10/13 23:54, Luis Bermudez wrote:
> Hi Cameron and Jody,
>
> Very good idea to have testing categories attach to OSGeo-Live projects.
>
> I suggest these categories:
> - Implemented: The project believes implements correctly the standard. The project has not tested or there is no OGC test available.
> - Passed not certified: The project has passed the test but has not applied for certification.
> - Certified: The project has pass the test and is certified (has a license)
>
> The reason is that "passed" might get confused with "certified".
>
> How are you expecting to get this information? Will developers provide manually this information?
>
> If there are open source projects that maintain a demo page and pass OGC tests, let us further talk about waiving fees to become reference implementations.
>
> Current reference implementations: http://cite.opengeospatial.org/reference
> Tests in beta: http://cite.opengeospatial.org/te2/
>
>
> - Luis
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Luis Bermudez, Ph.D.
> Director Compliance Program
> Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
> The OGC: Making Location Count
>
> Skype: bermudez_luis
> Twitter: @berdez
> Tel: +1 301 760 7323
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/lbermudez
>
>>   
>> From: Cameron Shorter
>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:06 PM
>> To: standards at lists.osgeo.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] Follow up from OSGeo board meeting
>>   
>> Jody has some valuable ideas below, which I think we could make very achievable.
>>
>> It would be straight forward for us to extend the OSGeo-Live template to describe the level of OGC standard certified an application is.
>>
>> I'd suggest there could be three levels of description:
>> "OGC <Standard> <Version> Used": The Project uses an OGC standard, but not run OGC CITE tests.
>>
>> "OGC <Standard> <Version> Passed": The Project has run OGC CITE tests, and believe they pass these tests.
>>
>> "OGC <Standard> <Version> Certified": The OGC has certified an application according to CITE.
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear OGC thinking on this.
>>
>> On 18/10/13 08:53, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> The OSGeo board meeting today touched on interaction with the OGC, perhaps with the formation of a subcommittee (in case a single volunteer cannot be found to replace Adrian Custer).
>>>   
>>> I have been thinking of a different problem, how OSGeo can benefit from our communication with the OGC.
>>>   
>>> Initial interaction has focused on promoting OGC standards, but my concern is projects will stop caring. Indeed when I look at our projects implementing OGC services many are not CITE compliant, or have not taken on the cost of officially being certified even if they run the tests from a QA standpoint.
>>>   
>>> So here are some ideas:
>>>   
>>> * The incubation of the CITE TEAM engine is something obvious where OSGeo can help, and something I will check up on via the incubation list.
>>>   
>>> * I would like to see OSGeo projects in the web mapping category, pass through CITE conformance tests. I understand there is a cost associated with officially passing these tests and getting a sticker. It would be good to negotiate to waive this fee, both to promote standards compliance, and show projects a benefit of participation. If the fee cannot be waived (stepping on OGC business model) then we should be able to provide our own "Tested" sticker.
>>>   
>>> * For projects that the OGC is not in position to certify (such as the desktop and geospatial libraries). I would like to come up with some form of "implementing" or "tested" sticker. Criterial can be sending a screen snap of connecting to each OSGeo web service.
>>>   
>>> I suspect the above activities could be co-ordinated with upgrading the version of the software package provided to OSGeo live. This would keep the qualification current, although I hesitate to volunteer groups for more work. Perhaps we can just include the "sticker" on the OSGeo live documentation pages as an incentive.
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Standards mailing list
>>>
>>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20131030/9f8e1161/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OSGeo_board.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2462 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20131030/9f8e1161/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OSGeo_charter.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2638 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20131030/9f8e1161/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OSGeo_chair.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2447 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20131030/9f8e1161/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OSGeo_psc.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2366 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20131030/9f8e1161/attachment-0003.png>