[OSGeo-Standards] The OGC requests comments on the OWS Context Conceptual Model and ATOM Extension candidate standards

Carl Reed creed at opengeospatial.org
Tue Feb 19 09:36:23 PST 2013

Jody -

OWS Context Conceptual Model as a PDF. More later.



From: Jody Garnett 
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:59 PM
To: Carl Reed 
Cc: standards at lists.osgeo.org 
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] The OGC requests comments on the OWS Context Conceptual Model and ATOM Extension candidate standards

So back to my origional feedback to Jim. 

The conceptual model makes great re-use of existing standards, you can watch it call out to the other fish in the pond and it very carefully does not repeat anything making it easier to write as a standard.

If you swap perspective to that of an implementor you are left with … a gap of understanding.

The document produced by the ATOM Encoding requires client authors to implement both an encoder (so they can make request) and a parser so that they can understand the information that has been cleverly reused by the standards body.

This standard is lazy on the part of the standards body, and hostile to client authors.

As an example: Just because GeoTools has the ability to encode WMS requests, DOES NOT imply there is a ready-at-hand WMS request parser available.

As such the payload delivered by ATOM to describe a WMS request may as well be on the moon. Perhaps a bit further out of the payload is the content of a PUT request, or needs to call out for more schema information as with GML and WFS content.

So kudos on the reuse of definitions, missed the target audience when considering implementors (you have asked for too much work).
Jody Garnett

On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 10:41 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

  Last time I looked at this one with Jim … I hated it (even though he was keen on how ATOM had been used).
  For me It was not providing enough context for a client to make its own request.

  I would really like to see a context document take shape, it would be very valuable between systems (which we tend to like on these osgeo lists).

  Tracing through your links I arrive at some word docs, don't suppose you can format shift those to PDF or something more portable.

  Jody Garnett

  On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 3:39 AM, Carl Reed wrote:

    I am not sure if this group saw this announcement. This is a preliminary comment period. There will be another comment period later in the process.

    The announcement is here:


    Please ignore the Comment Due date. The OGC OWS Context Standards Working Group is happy to receive comments on this candidate standard at any time.


    Carl Reed, PhD
    CTO and Executive Director Standards Program
    Open Geospatial Consortium

    The OGC: Making Location Count!


    This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies.

    "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein 
    "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller 
    Standards mailing list
    Standards at lists.osgeo.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20130219/8a6687c3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 12-080_OWS_Context_Conceptual_Model.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 955802 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20130219/8a6687c3/attachment-0001.pdf>

More information about the Standards mailing list