[Spanish] Re: [OSGeo-Standards] TMS and WMTS

[Luis W. Sevilla]

Hi, I had not subscribed to the standards list and I haven't followed 
the discussion, so sorry if this has being posted before.

I tend to think that OGC it's a meeting for normalization (sort of
'thinkers'), and OSGeo it's a meeting for software developers (mostly
'doers'). Don't misunderstand me. We at OSGeo of course we're technology
thinkers, but not usually interoperability standard thinkers, and they,
most of them, are people in the 'knowledge' field, and try to describe
how to cut their field in standard pieces ready to be exchanged.
 From my point of view the mistake at tiles was that only by writing a
schematic explanation and by implementing it you don't have and
standard. Only a (slightly) documented piece of software.

The question that Arnulf posted yesterday was 'to find out what each of
us could have done to better integrate results and findings'. And I'm
convinced that OSGeo could have tried to understand better how the
normalization process works, looked for a couple of OGC members
interested in tiles, and write a more descriptive paper and send it to
next OGC TC Meeting in the form of discussion paper, for pushing the WMS
modification.

So, for next coming opportunities, I suggest as soon as we'll have some
sort of modification or improvement to a norm, we may write a
Change/Requirement Request in the specific norm, by means of this
modification to be discussed by OGC. Of course, if the CR it's binded
with a piece of code that implements the suggestion will be better.

my two cents

Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Schuyler Erle wrote:
>   
>> * On  6-Apr-2010 at  6:13PM EDT, Cameron Shorter said:
>>     
>>> Suggested improvement: The OGC should weight OGC testbed funding to  
>>> favour  Open Source implementations, as the implementations are  
>>> significantly more valuable to OGC sponsors and the greater GIS  
>>> community as the implementations are made available for free.
>>>       
>> One last point: The OGC should take the final suggestion made by
>> Cameron very seriously.
>>
>> SDE
>>     
>
> Folks,
> thanks for the quick feedback.
>
> Testbed funding is pretty irrelevant in terms of helping us solve the
> communication issues with the OGC. The main OGC sponsors are proprietary
> software vendors. Tell me how Open Source implementations are
> significantly more valuable to them. :-) On top of this test bed work is
> rather boring, badly funded and has low recognition. But maybe I just
> miss a point here. Who wants to get testbed funding? Please ask me,
> maybe we can work something out, there are several interested EU projects.
>
> Let me add a quick note form my perspective. I was in the middle of
> trying to bridge between OGC and OSGeo around the tiling discussion.
> This culminated in an IRC chat with Chris Schmidt during an OGC plenary
> discussion and asking him whether the current take of the OGC's draft is
> implementable or not. He answered 20 minutes later: "Yes, I implemented
> it". That was cool. It just does not happen very often. But it shows
> that we are not half as disconnected as some suggestions might make us
> believe, except in our minds. And it always takes two sides to actually
> *want* to connect. The want-this bit on OSGeo's side lacks. This is not
> an opinion but my experience. Where does this frustration come from?
>
> I wonder whether OSGeo could also improve on something. All suggestions
> up to now point to the OGC needing to this or that. Let me ask back:
> What could OSGeo do to improve? It is not like the OSGeo tiling
> standards dominate the world, do they? If we really want to contribute
> to the standards world in a meaningful way we should take this serious
> and not just complain.
>
> If you ask: Who is the OGC? Then the answer is the same as for OSGeo:
> "Their respective members!" Now, who are the members of OGC? Believe me
> when I say that some more FOSS folks there would make me very happy. We
> have a MoU that gave us 6 OGC member slots for OSGeo folks and NONE of
> them are currently in use. That sucks.
>
> Regards,
> Arnulf.
>
> PS:
> Most CC'd folks are on the standards list anyway so I dropped them.
>
> - --
> Arnulf Christl
>
> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
> http://arnulf.us
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAku8ipoACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2O5QCfQD5mNXLzfj7cRfL7r8yElfO+
> +toAn3OPyA9DVdJmYDg1l0saI9NtgGyS
> =wK1P
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Spanish mailing list
> Spanish at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/spanish
>
> --
> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
>
>
>   


-- 
Director Técnico / CTO
Sigrid - Grupo Acotelsa
Tel. +34 600 433 808
http://www.stereowebmap.com
http://www.sigrid.es

The secret to programming is not intelligence, though of course that 
helps. It is not hard work or experience, though they help, too. The 
secret to programming is having smart friends. (Ron Avitzur)