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

[Jeff Harrison]

The central issue has been pointed out by others before, and that was ->  It's difficult find anything in the GeoServices proposal that's not already in the OGC standards or that couldn't easily be added to existing OGC standards.  The proposal has some good merits and there’s nothing inherently horrible about it.  The main problem is that the OGC already has developed specs for doing what it wants to do.  Adopting the GeoServices proposal would be a drastic change in the current direction of the OGC standards, with little or no gain.

(or words to that effect)

Regards,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lieberman, Josh (US - Boston) [mailto:jolieberman at deloitte.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Jeff Harrison; Even Rouault
Cc: oab at lists.opengeospatial.org; restful-policy.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; standards at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: RE: [RESTful-Policy.SWG] [OSGeo-Standards] Encodings and REST

Concerns about consistency here and elsewhere are certainly issues that the OAB has and will take up. There is also a widespread consensus, I think, that multiple implementations are incredibly important for a standard specification to be a success. Any OGC member or group of members may propose almost anything. It is really up to the rest of the members whether a consensus develops to adopt what is proposed, and up to the wider community whether to make use of it.

Best,

Josh




This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, by you is strictly prohibited.

v.E.1


-----Original Message-----
From: restful-policy.swg-bounces+jolieberman=deloitte.com at lists.opengeospatial.org [mailto:restful-policy.swg-bounces+jolieberman=deloitte.com at lists.opengeospatial.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Harrison
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:57 PM
To: Even Rouault
Cc: oab at lists.opengeospatial.org; restful-policy.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; standards at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [RESTful-Policy.SWG] [OSGeo-Standards] Encodings and REST

Even,

This is an excellent point, one that likely echoes the questions many others 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