[OSGeo-Standards] OGC Meeting in Toulouse, Document Motions

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,
not the most active list but at least with regular updates from OGC... :-)

Please find the Document Motions of the last meeting in Toulouse here:
http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/1512

Some informal comments from my perspective of what is hot (there is lot
smore obviously but I can only attend so many meetings... :-):

1.
OAB had a productive dialog on it's policy wrt to standards' bindings
[1]. We came to the conclusion that OGC should strive to make standards
abstract enough to not need to dictate any binding. This could mean that
in future OGC WMS implementation compliancy is not bound to
specificially implementing any, some or all of a SOAP, REST, KVP, HTTP,
etc. binding. This came out of a proposel of the SWE group which
currently only has solutions for a SOAP binding. But what they did was
explode the standard into a core and extensions. The core does not
specify any binding, but only the extension does. As there was only
interest and funding for SOAP up to now the first extension available
will be SOAP.

Even although I personally favor the resource over the RPC architecture
in the Web this way forward feels like the right thing to do. Comments
welcome.

2.
I updated the OSGeo Wiki to reflect the content of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) with OGC. There had been questions about it at the
latest FOSS4G.
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_signs_Memorandum_of_Understanding_with_OGC

3.
We have two new OSGeo members using the slots offered by OGC via the
MoU. Welcome Gerald Fenoy and Volker Mische - and let them (and all
other regular OGC members involved with OSGeo) know if you have anything
in mind that should find its way into standards work groups (SWG).
Comment: SWGs are closed to the public during the initial work phase due
to OGC legal policy, especially to prevent troubles wrt patents. All OGC
standards are and will always be open and free of cost for all once they
solidify.

4.
There are several other interesting dialogs going on in several mailing
lists as to what REST, RESTful and resource-oriented means to OGC
standards development. Will be interesting to see what we come up with.

5.
The GeoRM (Geo Rights Management) SWG has been terminated due to grid
lock situation - it did not get anywhere. Comment: Seems like DRM is
sailing past geographic data. Thanks, folks! The Domain Working Groups
is still active but seems to focus more on authentication, encryption
and access control, which makes a lot of sense wrt private data, etc.
Shibboleth - one outcome of the latest Interoperability Exeriment has
gone into production all over European universities and scientific
communities.

6.
Standards for Geosynchronization? If you are interested, want to drop
ideas, etc. feel free to go to the public OGC list here:
https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/private/geosync-public/

Best regards,
Arnulf

[1] The term "bindings" itself is nor well defined. In this context it
refers to the technology / protocol pertinent to a certain standard.


- --
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

iEYEARECAAYFAkzFahkACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b23HwCcDyQER5F1f+Ik4rLFGCc21e2G
NygAnizcP3oAqcZy7ev4yxheKRHEhE38
=ZA0F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----