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

[Jeff Harrison]

Even,

This is an excellent point, one that likely echoes the questions many other have as well...

Even wrote:  '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.'

Regards,
Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 21, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Even Rouault <even.rouault at mines-paris.org> wrote:

> 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