[Fwd: [OSGeo-Standards] WMS-C and Capabilities]

[Joan Maso]

Hi,

Hi,
I have been working on a draft of an OGC
standard candidate (the one that you mentioned)
begging to people in diferent forums for comments on that document.
I have been trying to combine in a single draft (unfinished) document
using OGC common framework with OSGeo proposals. I'm not
alone in this process because everything has been discussed inside
the WMS revision group but that is not enough.

I have recently introduced REST, in the document. In the last
teleconference we agree on simplifying REST encoding eliminating
the "inline" option but I had no time for doing it to the current version.
We also are not sure about "ordered KVP encoding".

I do not know the exact policy of OGC about draft documents but
I can send a link to unofficial webside to any one that wants to
contribute with suggestions or comments. We are planning to move
the document forward before November and I would like to do it
with OSGeo contributions in order to release a document that pleases
as people as possible; at least a little.

Joan Masó
UAB-CREAF-MiraMon
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Schmidt" <crschmidt at metacarta.com>
To: "Mark Leslie" <mrk.leslie at gmail.com>
Cc: <standards at lists.osgeo.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [OSGeo-Standards] WMS-C and Capabilities]


> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:03:59PM +1000, Mark Leslie wrote:
>> Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>> >Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:53:33AM -0700, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> This discussion is fascinating to me as it does not align with my
>> >>> expectations ... my expectation is that this
>> >>> WMS-C documents some additional vendor specific capabilities that are
>> >>> added to an existing WMS (much like SLD support is added to an 
>> >>> existing
>> >>> WMS).
>> >>>
>> >>> As such I am expecting to see a WMS with vendor specific capabilities
>> >>> letting me know that some TileSets are available; and that if I call
>> the
>> >>> existing GetMap operation in just the right way I can make use of it.
>> >>>
>> >>> So I was not expecting to see a standalone TileCache.
>> >>>
>> >> Right. I'm not aware of any caching tile server which also serves
>> >> non-cached data with regular WMS requests, but the WMS spec was 
>> >> designed
>> >> to allow that.
>> >>
>> >I was more thinking for a WMS implementation that had some caching
>> >support built in. Sounds like we have set up the convention to allow for
>> >this; but lack a proof of concept.
>> >
>> >However the point is made - Andrea is correctly describing the existing
>> >implementations. While this is not what I expected I can certainly roll
>> >with it; now if only there was a good way to tell where the source WMS
>> >server is :-P
>> >
>> >Thanks for answering my questions everyone.
>> >Jody
>>
>> There's another (potential) standard to consider, which is the OpenGIS
>> Web Map Tiling Service Discussion Paper.  From what I can gather, this
>> is the evolution of the wmsc proposal, but they have made the decision
>> to clearly separate it from the WMS spec, GetTile instead of GetMap for
>> example.  It's not a spec yet, but OWS-6 is looking to change that from
>> the sounds of it.
>> I don't have a link to the paper, but the number is OGC 07-057r4.
>
> The paper isn't published; no one who isn't an OGC member can get access
> to it.
>
> As usual, the OGC is going about creating standards in a vaccuum, hiding
> drafts from potential implementors.
>
> (TileCache has had WMTS support for 9 months now, but only because I got
> an illegal copy of the document from someone who does have OGC access.
> I've been waiting for the document to be published ever since so I could
> comment on it, since there are a number of supremely flawed design
> decisions, imho.)
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>