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

Wed Apr 20 09:40:22 EDT 2011

Perhaps

http://download.deegree.org/deegree2.2/docs/deegree_wpvs_documentation_en.pdf

I know there are others.

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael P. Gerlek" <mpg at flaxen.com>
To: "'Carl Reed'" <creed at opengeospatial.org>; <standards at lists.osgeo.org>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:09 AM
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Standards] RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Using an OSGeo membership 
towork at the OGC

Is anyone doing an open source implementation of these two specs?

-mpg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Reed [mailto:creed at opengeospatial.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 1:19 PM
> To: mpg at flaxen.com; standards at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Using an OSGeo
> membership towork at the OGC
>
> 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