[Fwd: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OGC name for a tile cache]
Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS)
bartvde at osgis.nl
Mon Dec 17 13:48:51 EST 2007
thanks for this clarification.
I think you missed answering Christopher's (key) question, where can he
post his review/remarks of the document publicly and discuss it/them?
Should the OGC forum be used for that?
Carl Reed OGC Account schreef:
> Christopher -
> I can understand your frustration.
> There was some confusion regarding this particular paper. However
> please note that I authorized Arnulf to share r3 with the OSGeo
> community. This authorization was based on the OGC members approving
> the release if this paper for public use and comment.
> That said, any engineering report submitted by a member goes through
> the following formal process:
> 1. Author(s) must post the new document to the OGC Pending Documents
> 2. There is a three week internal review period in which members can
> review and comment on the document. In many ways, this is a quality
> control step.
> 3. At this point, the members can approve the release of the
> engineering report as a Discussion Paper or as a Best Practice paper.
> This approval may be by an electronic vote (which takes another week)
> or at an OGC face to face meeting. Approval of pubic release of any
> engineering report is an OGC policy and is meant to again insure a
> level of quality control and discussion.
> 4. Assuming the document is approved for release, Greg Buehler of OGC
> staff and I then review the document and do a final quality control
> check. Quite often, we need to work with the authors to correct
> ambiguities in the document, This usually takes another one or two weeks.
> Now, to help the community at large know when a new document is
> posted, the OGC will be implementing the ability to subscribe to
> alerts via RSS whenever any new document is posted to the public OGC
> archives. Arnulf made this suggestion and it was unanimously approved
> by the OGC Planning Committee.
> Kind regards
> Carl Reed
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Schmidt"
> <crschmidt at metacarta.com>
> To: <creed at opengeospatial.org>
> Cc: <standards at lists.osgeo.org>; "Peter Vretanos"
> <pvretano at cubewerx.com>; "Edric Kieghan" <ekeighan at cubewerx.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OGC name for a tile cache]
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:26:58AM -0500, creed at opengeospatial.org
>>> One of the OGC documents approved for public release is the Tiled WMS
>>> Discussion Paper. A Discussion Paper is not an official position of the
>>> OGC. A Discussion Paper is released for information, discussion, and
>>> comment. The Tiled WMS paper represents one proposal for how tiling
>>> be handled when using a WMS. There are obviously other approaches,
>>> many of
>>> which have been discussed in the OGC WMS Revision Working Group.
>> Based on my understanding, the released Discussion Paper is not the most
>> recent effort in this direction, as Arnulf helpfully pointed out.
>> The lack of information that a followup discussion paper is being worked
>> on makes it difficult for groups to put together any serious coment had
>> I written comments based on the released discussion paper, they would
>> likely have been useless, since the more recent effort ('r3') pursues a
>> different direction for solving a similar problem.
>> The date on the 'r3' draft is 2007-11-13. My calendar shows it to be
>> more than a month later than that -- and still, there has been no
>> information published that I can find about the "OpenGISÂ® Web Map
>> Service Discussion Paper" other than through Arnulf posting to this
>> mailing list and sharing it with us directly on IRC. :)
>> The 'r3' draft -- again, provided by Arnulf, not OGC -- is actually
>> relatively comprehensive, but there are a number of points that I would
>> find it useful to discuss with the authors and the community at large.
>> However, I see no indication that there is a place to discuss or offer
>> feedback to the OGC -- only the authors emails are in either draft, so
>> far as I can tell. Without a feedback mechanism that is shared,
>> feedback on a spec is likely to be limited at best. I seldom spend time
>> on email related to standards or open source development that isn't
>> shared: users who email me directly for assistance with OpenLayers, for
>> example, are redirected to the mailing list, where I will help them.
>> These type of things limit the feedback that the open source community
>> offers to the OGC developments. Perhaps this is acceptable to OGC:
>> since the paper is only a discussion paper, and not a specification,
>> perhaps community feedback is not being sought at this time. However,
>> not involving interested parties early and often is likely to cause pain
>> at some point along the line, and I think that it is important for the
>> OGC to recognize this, and seek to involve the community -- both open
>> source and proprietary -- at every step along the way in order to
>> develop the best specification possible.
>> When will the *current* tiled WMS work be released? That's what I'm
>> really interested in, more than anything else, at this point -- that,
>> and a mechanism by which comments can be submitted to it. The paper
>> itself says "It is distributed for review and comment." -- hopefully
>> such comments can be shared in a way that benefits all when possible.
>> Note that none of this is a direct critique of this Discussion Paper.
>> The comments in this email represent my frustration with OGC process as
>> I understand it -- and since I'm not an OGC member, the only vantage
>> point I have is from far outside the OGC community. Hopefully it will
>> just turn out that I'm misinformed, and that this is all a lot of
>> unneccesary chatter because I can't use Google. :)
>> Christopher Schmidt
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS, Open Source GIS
bartvde at osgis.nl
More information about the Standards