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

[Carl Reed]

Apologies to all for a Spell Check goof. Embarrassing.

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Reed" <creed at opengeospatial.org>
To: "Mark Leslie" <mrk.leslie at gmail.com>; "Christopher Schmidt" 
<crschmidt at metacarta.com>
Cc: <standards at lists.osgeo.org>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [OSGeo-Standards] WMS-C and Capabilities]


> All -
>
> To be very clear, the WMTS document is not an "illegal" document for use 
> in the open community.
>
> Yes, the latest version (r5) has not been publicly released by the OGC. 
> However, an earlier version is publicly available. Further, all Change 
> Requests to an existing OGC standard are now considered public 
> (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/cr). We are working the kinks out 
> of the pubic web app so that all outstanding CRs are available for public 
> review and comment.  Finally, I have the authority to share in-progress 
> documents with other standards organizations. Once there is an official 
> request, all I need to do as ask the appropriate OGC Working Group (by 
> email) for approval to share. This is how I share early version of 
> documents with ISO, the IETF, and OASIS. While OSGeo is not a formal 
> standards organization, I feel that an open collaboration on key standards 
> activities is highly appropriate.
>
> So, apologies for not having been clear on certain OGC policies before. 
> Going forward, if there is an OGC document that is not public and the 
> OSGeo community feels that that document is important enough to share for 
> discussion and comment prior to public release, please let me know!
>
> Regards
>
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Christopher Schmidt" <crschmidt at metacarta.com>
> To: "Mark Leslie" <mrk.leslie at gmail.com>
> Cc: <standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:40 PM
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards