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

Wed Apr 7 12:10:12 EDT 2010

The whole sordid tiling affair can be read here.

  http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/tiling/

If anyone could comment on what "went wrong" it might be Raj, who was
at the FOSS4G BoF that started the whole thing and on the mailing list
during what passed for the "development process" in the fall of 2006.

It's interesting that in the fall of 2007, when OGC had a draft in
hand from CubeWerx it was still not possible for non-OGC members to
see the draft until after it had been through the TC process.

http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/tiling/2007-September/000294.html

P.

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Luis W. Sevilla <lsevilla at sigrid.es> wrote:
> Hi, I'm not in 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>