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

Raj Singh rsingh at opengeospatial.org
Wed Apr 7 16:14:53 EDT 2010 

Aargh you called me out! Yes I remember that first meeting, and  
thought things were nicely on track for "one tiling spec to rule them  
all." Unfortunately, I don't know what happened in late 2008 to early  
2009. It seems that consensus fell apart over one or two critical  
details, and they couldn't be resolved. Up until the end I was hoping  
those differences would be resolved, but I really don't know the  
extent of the differences.

---
Raj


On Apr 7, at 12:10 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>

More information about the Standards mailing list