[OSGeo-Standards] RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Using an OSGeo membership towork at the OGC

Fri Apr 15 16:19:27 EDT 2011

Michael -

Yes, there is a pretty good sized group. Check out the just announced 3d 
Portrayal Interoperability Experiment.

Description is here: 
http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/initiatives/3dpie

There are 2 draft 3d portrayal specifications that will be stress tested.

Cheers

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael P. Gerlek" <mpg at flaxen.com>
To: <standards at lists.osgeo.org>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:15 PM
Subject: [OSGeo-Standards] RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Using an OSGeo membership 
towork at the OGC

[moved to Standards list]

Thanks for the great summary.

Is anyone at OGC still doing any work on serving 3D data?  There was a sort 
of WMS-with-a-3D-bbox paper a year or two back, I'd be interested in knowing 
if that's gotten any traction lately.

-mpg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Custer
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:17 AM
> To: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Using an OSGeo membership to work at the
> OGC
>
> Hey Jody!
>
> On 04/15/2011 03:27 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> > There were some restrictions with respect to use of the memberships;
> > as a result I could not use them to participate in geoapi (as the
> > organisation I worked for at the time was in position to be an ogc
> > member; that precluded me making use of one of the osgeo
> memberships).
> >
> > If you are working in a research capacity, or strictly as a volunteer,
> > perhaps you could make use of one of the OSGeo memberships.
> >
> > I don't think we had any restrictions on their use; but it would be
> > nice to discuss anything interesting on the standards at osgeo.org email 
> > list.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Jody Garnett
>
> Ohh la, la! "anything interesting"!?
>
> There is so much interesting going on that I can't possibly keep track and 
> I
> really don't know how to communicate that back. During the closing 
> pleneray
> of every TC meeting (every 3 months), each working group or ad-hoc
> meeting reports back and tells everyone where things stand. Those could
> form the basis of some report or some such. As a quick example:
>
> CityGML
> Going whole hog with great energy, know very little about status or goals.
>
> CSW
> Working very slowly so not sure when these will be released, but 3 appears
> close.
> CSW 3.x => (on ebrim 3?), defining a required open search interface.
> CSW 4.0 => on ebrim 4, has taken a back seat for now.
>
> GeoDRM
> dead for now {yeah!}, actually there is an abstract model in which the
> 'gatekeeper' is magical software that exists on every device, cannot be
> broken, and works. I suspect it is unimplementable but, if it were, would 
> not
> recover elegantly from failure.
>
> GEOSPARQL
> spatial triples and operators as a foundation for the semantic web, 
> whatever
> that will really turn out to be
>
> GEOXACML
> adding spatial rules for OASIS's XACML, part of the WS-* stack used for
> security.
>
> GML
> GML 3.2 => stable basis for a while [RELEASED] GML 3.3 => more advanced
> data structures extending 3.2 [ALMOST] GML 4.0 => initial meeting possibly
> around FOSS4G Denver, how to modularize? what to provide differently than
> GML 3.x? [FOUR YEARS AWAY]
>
> NetCDF
> Published.
>
> O&M
> The observation and measurement spec (also ISO 19156) has landed as a core
> part of our work.
>
> OWS Context
> Recently started to define a way to share a description of the current 
> state of
> a 'view' on a system, that is the open visualizations, accessible 
> services, and
> currently visualized information. (Something like a 'project file' in a 
> certain
> proprietary system.) Have good energy.
>
> Pub-Sub
> Recently started to define a mechanism for services to work through
> subscription to a service which then publishes and pushes out information.
> Working hard, fast, and well driven by needs of the US Next Generation
> Aviation infrastructure.
>
> SIMPLE FEATURES
> Expanding and modularizing the existing spec. These never had 'simple'
> attributes as in a shapefile but were only ever features with single 
> geometry
> (which I did not understand for a while) only a single geometry property, 
> the
> geometry itself will no longer be simple either since they are bringing in 
> all
> the data structures from SQLMM. [6mo-1year? AWAY]
>
> SE
> Working on the next spec trying to address many issues and new
> functionality. Are currently lining up all the votes for the pieces
> which should be integrated.
>
> SLD
> being taken over by WMS
>
> SWE
> SWE Common Data Model 2.0 => RELEASED
> SWE (base) Service Model 2.0 => RELEASED
> SOS and SPS updates based on these new foundations are, I think, being
> done now.
>
> Table Joinning Service
> Just RELEASED, not sure what it is exactly.
>
> WCS
> WCS 2.0 => core is done and implementations exist. They are currently
> working on extensions for more functionality.
> WCPS (Web Coverage Processing Service) is apparently not a service at
> all but really a language for expressing processing rules.
>
> WFS
> Not sure at all where they are or what they are working on.
>
> WMS
> WMTS 1.0 => RELEASED
> WMS 2.0 => taking the modularization injunction to heart and trying to
> clean up all the loose ends from these past years of 'messy wms'. Have a
> good core and we are currently trying to nail down the re-structuring of
> the standard. We have identified almost all the key issues we need to
> fix, are writing up for each the alternative solutions and their
> advantages and disadvantages. Aiming to finish this year.
>
> WPS
> Not sure where things stand or where they are headed, nor really of how
> active they are currently.
>
> OWS Common
> Currently languishing to the chagrin of everyone. I proposed a way
> forwards, now only need the energy to push it forwards but need to
> finish WMS 2.0 first.
>
>
> There are also cross-cutting issues which drive work in multiple groups.
> The work on the european spatial data infrastructure driven by INSPIRE
> has raised many issues; due to their legally mandated schedule they have
> had to solve their issues in their own ways quickly. The meteorologists
> have descended upon us these past few years and pushed hard and well to
> have their needs addressed which I expect to really start happening next
> year.
>
> Internally, we have many currents as well. The requirement to build
> specs as assemblages of modules has been hard for everyone and yet very
> useful, making for better standards. There is a real, historical split
> between the Sensor/Observation work and the WCS, WFS, WMS, WPS
> services
> but we are starting to find common ground and may grow closer over time.
> The REST debate rages, flaring up every other month---it is pushing us
> all to think better about how these services could work.
>
> (Hmm, well even this 'off the top of my head' example was not quick.)
>
> ~adrian
>
> >
> > On Friday, 15 April 2011 at 10:34 PM, Adrian Custer wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> In reviewing Arnulf's recent white paper, I was reminded that OSGeo has
> >> various memberships to the OGC. Since I am in need of re-joining the
> OGC
> >> as an individual member, I might be in a position to use such a
> >> membership.
> >>
> >> Do we have any guidelines on how these memberships are to be used?
> >> Specifically, if I were to use one of them would I need to 'represent'
> >> the OSGeo membership in some way (which I would find hard since I have
> >> always been on the margins of OSGeo) or could I continue to represent
> >> the 'free software community' as I feel I already do quite a bit at the
> >> OGC? Are there any other responsiblities that using one of those
> >> memberships would bring, such as reporting back to OSGeo in some way?
> >>
> >> More practically, how would one go about requesting such a
> membership?
> >>
> >> And finally, is anyone actually invested in any of these memberships 
> >> yet?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for any information or pointers,
> >> ~~adrian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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