[OSGeo-Standards] Re: Goals of using OWS Context Documents

Lorenzo Becchi lorenzo at ominiverdi.com
Tue Oct 23 18:45:12 EDT 2007


> Don't bother apologizing; part of why we are on a mailing list so 
> people that were there when it happened (or are off on a private OGC 
> wiki) can help facilitate.
you know, "standards" sound so serious....
and all that private links Cameron is posting make me feel as the one 
who doesn't pay the bill for the movie.
heh
(naturally kidding)


>>   I mean: why should we deal with Mapfile, GeoServer configuration, 
>> OpenLayers configuration, uDig format (I guess you have one), QGIS 
>> format, gvSIG format, and all proprietary vendors formats when we can 
>> probably do everything with an OWS Context?
> Indeed; the other approach is lots of little conversion programs :-( 
> There is a difference between configuration in the MapServer and 
> GeoServer sense; and a context document for use in visualization 
> programs. I saw what deegree did to WMS Context documents and it was 
> horrible.
I have no idea about Degree solution, nobody says their Context should 
be taken as example, I guess, or  we can probably discuss it.
I don't really see a big difference between Desktop and Server apps 
Context. There's surely an elegant way to add Server or Desktop specific 
attributes without messing up the document. Do you ever wrote down a 
list of elements/attributes that differs form one version to the other?
>
> You are correct; we do have one point of difficulty:
> - OWS Context ==> Open Web Context; ie a context document for 
> combining "Open Web Services" into a visual map. The OGC has the 
> concept of an Open Web Service defined with a capabilities document 
> etc, similar in spirit to WSDL or Corbra object request broker...
> - And what we want is an "Open Context Document"
>
> As long as we are clear on the different, and don't care, we can start 
> off adding additional stuff into OWS Context. It is after all a good 
> place to start.
maybe somebody form OGC can say if we risk a fork or can be maintained 
inside OWS Context development.

>> If we accept this point of view even OGC AbstractResourceTypes should 
>> be Extensions.
> Fair enough; for the onces that have hit a formal release with a 
> version number it is nice if we have them represent themselves in a 
> context document. Actually I would love to see the Open Web Service 
> template document expanded so that people writing new services 
> remember to contribute an Extention to OWS Context.
it would be very important to me too.

thanks
Lorenzo


More information about the Standards mailing list