[OSGeo-Standards] [RESTful-Policy.SWG] Encodings and REST

[Carl Reed]

Evan -

As part of the OGC standards process, a standards working group is required 
to discuss and vote on all comments received during the public comment 
period. Any comment that is accepted will result in changes to the candidate 
standard. They also need to develop a document that collates all comments as 
well as the SWG decisions with regard to each comment. Finally, the SWG is 
supposed to contact each of the individuals that submitted comments as to 
the disposition (accept, accept with modification, future work, reject) of 
the comment.

Hope this helps clarify the OGC process.

Regards

Carl


-----Original Message----- 
From: Even Rouault
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 12:34 PM
To: standards at lists.osgeo.org ; restful-policy.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org 
; oab at lists.opengeospatial.org
Cc: Clemens Portele
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [RESTful-Policy.SWG] Encodings and REST

Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 14:54:34, Arnulf Christl a écrit :
> Folks,
> I neither followed the discussion closely not the decision process of
> the SWG. Can somebody summarize the rationale of the Geoservices REST
> API group for not implementing GeoJSON but going down another route?
>
> Somehow it seems like OGC is becoming just yet another party in the
> general noise of format proliferation. We did better in other areas,
> how come we cannot stay on top of this one?
>
> This is pretty clear language, how are we going to address it?
> https://twitter.com/vmx/status/259275792817741824
>
> Apparently this comment by Volker Mische (who we know as supportive to
> the OGC) is receiving a lot of positive support in the broader
> geospatial IT crowd. Ignoring is not a solution.

Hi,

I'm unfortunately not very aware of the OGC processes, but will all the
comments that have been posted on
http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/ in July and August 2012 
be
answered, or did they just land in a black hole ? There were pretty good
points exposed by a great diversity of people, that shouldn't be ignored 
IMHO.

I had exposed my concerns about the lack of consistency of the new proposal
with existing OGC standards. Reading
http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/oab , I see that 
"Specifically,
the OGC Architecture Board works with the TC and the PC to insure 
architecture
consistency of the Baseline". I would be indeed very interested in hearing 
how
the new proposal is architecturely consistent with the baseline (*)

WMTS was an example of how OGC standards could be amended to embrace REST. 
The
new proposal takes a completely different route.

Finally, I second Volker on the lack of transparency of the process. It is
good that OGC standards are open when they are finished, but it would be 
much
better if their elaboration was truly open. Otherwise there is always the
uneasy feeling that money and market considerations take over technical 
merit.

Best regards,

Even

(*) Hint: it is not. See my own comments of
http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/2012-July/000166.html :
Quoting 12-062r1, "While it would be possible to develop new versions of the
OGC Web Services standards using a consistent framework and with support for
JSON representations and a RESTful "binding", this will likely take 
significant
time due to the unresolved REST-related discussion items, the current
organization of OGC SWGs based on the individual standards and the
fragmentation into separate standards. "
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Standards at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards