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

[Seven]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 2012-10-21 12:20, schrieb Volker Mische:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 10/20/2012 05:40 PM, Panagiotis (Peter) A. Vretanos wrote:
>> Arnulf,
>> 
>> I think the reasoning was that the JSON representation in the
>> proposed Geoservices standard pre-dates GeoJSON and there is
>> already an install base using that encoding.
>> 
>> I think this issue, however, extends beyond encodings to API's as
>> well.  I still have a hard time seeing why OGC needs 2 catalogue
>> APIs, 2 web mapping APIs, 2 feature access APIs, etc ...  I think
>> this will confuse the market.
> 
> This is also a problem I have. At the moment if you use a WMS, you
> are not in a vendor lock-in there are very decent alternatives.
> When you build upon the mapping part of the GeoServerives REST API,
> you are locked-in (please correct me if I'm wrong).
> 
> Cheers, Volker

It seems like you are right. But we have to take into account that we
are now on standards @ OSGeo alone.

Did anybody beside esri implement the GeoServices REST API or parts of
it?

Carl,
would it make sense to poll this more broadly?


Best regards,
Arnulf

>> Ciao.
>> 
>> On 10/20/2012 08:54 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote: 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.
>> 
>> Cheers, Arnulf
>> 
>> On 10/20/2012 12:46 PM, Peter Schut wrote:
>>>>> The good thing about standards is that there are so many of
>>>>> them. The bad thing about standards....
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers, Peter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Jeff Harrison 
>>>>> <jharrison at thecarbonproject.com 
>>>>> <mailto:jharrison at thecarbonproject.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's my understanding that the GeoServices REST group has
>>>>> rejected integrating GeoJSON.  I suppose this means that if
>>>>> OGC passes GeoServices REST with its current JSON, there
>>>>> will then be 'OGC GeoServices JSON'. Which means this could
>>>>> be added to OGC GML, GMLsf and OGC KML on the list of
>>>>> encodings vendors may need to support. Then there could be
>>>>> OGC GeoJSON if that angle moves forward.  Add to this the
>>>>> fact that there will likely be an OSM JSON API next year,
>>>>> as well potentially an OGC GeoPackage.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So the 2013 interoperability tech landscape, for
>>>>> geospatial features alone, could look like -> OGC GML, OGC
>>>>> GMLsf and OGC KML ... GeoServices JSON, GeoJSON, OSM JSON,
>>>>> ... GeoPackage
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is it just me, or is this a really long list?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards, Jeff
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ OAB mailing
>>> list OAB at lists.opengeospatial.org 
>>> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/oab
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Standards mailing
> list Standards at lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> 


- -- 
http://arnulf.us
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCOqc8ACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3nTQCfdmv+bxULig+SrxZqI9WnJ5WY
+ucAnRcXwl0CUDsu8KBBhKSc3AxXYsCv
=Shvs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----