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

[Allan Doyle]

On Apr 7, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hey,
> sorry to spam Discuss with nerdy smalltalk. We might want to move back
> to the standards list for follow ups.
> 
> Brian Russo wrote:
>> I have a simpler/better idea - have the OGC stop creating
>> unnecessarily complex standards hundreds of pages long that hardly
>> anyone implements. This will save time/money, and benefit users,
>> proprietary and open source developers alike.
> 
> Yes making standards readable and usable is a great idea. It takes time
> and brains to implement a good standard. I lack both, so not a good
> choice. How about you? If you are good at this why don't you join the
> OGC process and help do it better? But watch out, the OGC has a high
> frustration potential because there is always knowledgeable folks around
> who pick apart what you just put together. Which is why some standards
> actually work pretty well.

Quite the contrary. I think there are only a handful of people who really understand each spec document. Then when it's time to vote at the TC level where on the order of 50+ members have a vote, you're in the realm of people who have only the vaguest understanding of the technology coupled with a quite narrow view of what their own organization's interests are. A memorable vote I observed was one where a proposal to require every spec to have a SOAP implementation was put forward, debated, and passed in a TC closing plenary with virtually no one understanding the implications.

Contrast that with the FOSS approach of debate on a mailing list or IRC or face-to-face at a venue like FOSS4G where a far higher percentage of the people engaged in a discussion are actually implementing or using the spec being debated.

> 
>> Sometimes I think it's a concerted effort to make sure the 'open'
>> standards are as complex as possible so few people have the resources
> 
> Thank you for the laugh but you do not believe this yourself. So why say
> it? This is exactly the tone I regret in this discussion. OGC is neither
> a conspiracy nor are they all brain dead. I might be both, conceded, but
> this is beside the topic.

It's not due to a concerted effort. But the evidence shows that the results are generally complex.

> 
>> to implement them (except proprietary vendors and academics with tons
>> of time) and the rest of us all stick with proprietary standards
> 
> I guess that you will be of the same opinion as me that an open standard
> that all can use for free is better than a costly and potentially patent
> infected proprietary standard that can be changed at the whim of its
> singular (proprietary vendor) owner. At least I can see a difference.
> 
>> (because we have the software - the lazy solution), or simple open
>> ones like GeoRSS-Simple (because a normal person with a normal
>> schedule can actually understand it).
> 
> That is another one that should go under the hood of OSGeo, if it is to
> become of any relevance for example to INSPIRE. If they want to use it,
> it has to become an ISO standard, else you can't stuff it in a law.

Wait, you can't use a spec that's not an ISO standard? I doubt it. Who cares whether you can mandate it or not. If a spec isn't going to get used unless it's mandated, maybe it's not such a compelling spec?

> Stupid, aint it?
> 
>> WMS has been a pretty good success even though I'm sure that'll get
>> some snickering from the peanut gallery due to its age - it is still a
> 
> Ah - but a standard is good if it lasts, isn't it? Imagine having http
> change every half year. Wouldn't that be fun? There sure would be more
> work to do for us. HTTP 1.1 is 176 pages[1].
> 
>> common method especially for some older software we support - but when
>> I look at the list of OGC standards
>> (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards), for the most part I see
>> well-intentioned but effectively irrelevant standards. What happened?
> 
> Quite a few standards never took off because they are crap. As simple as
> that. It is somewhat similar to SourceForge. By just looking at 350.000
> Open Source projects one might be awed. But how many really work?
> 
>> Sarcasm? Maybe, but WMS 1.3.0 runs in at 84 pages, and is
>> well-written/concise. Looking at just the GML description gives me a
>> headache - http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/gml. It proudly
>> proclaims it's an ISO standard as well. So what? If it's barely used
> 
> You are right, GML sucks bad. But it is not true that it is not used.
> The German Cadastral and Surveying Authorities of the Länder adopted GML
> as core for the new cadastral base map format. They could only do so
> because it is an ISO de-jure standard and can only thus become part of a
> law. Technically it is a huge PITA. Just like cadastral bas maps are.
> But it also makes sure that folks now don't fall off the plate when they
> step over the border of their city boundaries, county or state. This is
> an achievement that neither proprietary vendors nor foss hackers managed
> in the whole cadastral IT history. The use case is just a bit different
> than locating the next pizza palace. The cadastre maps ownership - the
> basis of our whole economy (be it broken or not, this is what we live
> in, on and off).
> 
>> it's barely a standard. Maybe my corner of the world is just strange
>> and elsewhere it's a candyland of people happily plucking geodata from
>> OGC-standardized data services while riding unicorns, but I don't
>> think so. I think we're pretty typical.
>> 
>> OGCification of standards like KML are even more hilarious since
>> Google Earth is well below ESRI on my list of 'opendata-compliant
>> software'. Sure lots of people 'support' KML but overwhelmingly they
>> support some simplified subset of the ~250 page standards document.
> 
> KML is more interesting from the governance perspective. And I am pretty
> happy that KML is not owned by Google any more but by the OGC because
> the OGC is a non-profit organization dedicated to make the world
> interoperate. When KML came out everybody was full of praise for the
> pragmatic way of doing things. Now that it is in the OGC it sucks again?
> Funny.

> 
> Google now has to ask a diverse bunch of spatial experts, geo
> professionals and neo geographers if their changes to KML are worth
> pursuing. And OGC makes sure that even you have a say in the public
> comment period. Not bad, huh? But it gets even cooler. You could be one
> of those diverse spatial experts, geo professionals and neo geographers
> and join the process right from the start! If you think it sucks, then
> you can say so right away. Why wait until many people have invested lots
> of time and written large incomprehensible documents? You are wasting
> other people's time by complaining *afterwards*.

Joining the OGC process is time consuming and represents an opportunity cost. The time required to understand and leverage the process to advantage is not inconsequential.

	Allan