[OSGeo-Standards] Re: [tiling] OGC Tiled WMS Discussion Paper
sophia.parafina at ionicenterprise.com
Thu Sep 13 12:57:16 EDT 2007
I heard back from Carl Reed and he says that it will be available after
the Technical Committee meeting on Sept. 20th.
Edric Keighan wrote:
> FYI ...
> How our proposal fits with OpenLayers recommendations referenced at
> the following site:
> Sophia Parafina wrote:
>> I've asked Carl Reed at OGC to make it available for comment.
>> Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 10:47:27AM -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>>> I was contacted by Edric Keighan about a discussion paper that was
>>>> recently submitted to OGC (with Cubewerx as the editor) titled:
>>>> 07-057r2 OpenGIS Tiled WMS Discussion Paper
>>> I'm guessing this would be a continuation of OGC 07-057? The editors of
>>> that were not Cubewerx, but from uab.cat, if my records serve. I'd be
>>> interested in seeing either of the two documents, and would ask that
>>>> I believe it is roughly comparible in goals to this work:
>>>> I believe Edric is interested in feedback on the paper and support
>>>> for the
>>>> proposal (for those of us who are OGC members) and perhaps more
>>>> he is interested in implementations of the specification within our
>>>> with OpenLayers being the most obvious candidate.
>>> OpenLayers is unlikely to add support for further tiled WMS
>>> specifications through the work of its current set of developers.
>>> Additional layers would need to be created, tested, and supported by
>>> some other person who would accept 'ownership' of the layer type: I've
>>> already avoided including some functionality in OpenLayers simply
>>> because no one was willing to take on the task of supporting it.
>>> If some person or organization is willing to take on the task of
>>> supporting a layer, then in general, OpenLayers is open to the task of
>>> adding that functionality. However, I'm somewhat hesitant to include
>>> yet-another way of accessing pre-cached WMS information: especially if
>>> it has not taken into account the design goals of the Recommendation we
>>> created at the last FOSS4G, which is described at:
>>> An example of things we explicitly discussed and discarded: *
>>> GetTile requests -- we wanted to stick with GetMap, and simply allow
>>> for matching the map request to a tile when appropriate.
>>> * Using anything other than the standard GetCapabilities for
>>> describing functionality: GetCapabilities allows for vendor
>>> extensions, and this
>>> seemed the right way to pass the information back to the client
>>> * Starting the tiles at the '0,0' point of the world (Instead
>>> choosing to go for the lower left corner). Note that this is
>>> different from
>>> Google's tiles, but the same as WorldWind's. * Creating any new
>>> form of requests -- it's easiest for client
>>> functionality to simply extend the existing requests rather than
>>> creating new formats.
>>> Again, I don't know what's in the document: if someone could tell me
>>> more specifically how to get a copy of it, I could offer a more formal
>>> review from the point of view of an implementor of a tile map server.
>>> Thanks for the heads up, Frank.
More information about the Standards