[OSGeo-Standards] OGC liaison memberships
acuster at gmail.com
Thu Jun 6 10:06:47 PDT 2013
On 6/1/13 5:49 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> I'm unclear on what you are asking for which is not in place already.
I was expressing two things:
1) wanting clarification on your statement
> I don't think it appropriate for OSGeo to develop standards outside of
> the OGC.
since that seemed to have some thinking behind it but runs counter to my
feeling on particular standards, and
2) wondering if there was space at OSGeo, like wiki space, but where I
could plant non-wiki HTML, CS, Js instead of wiki-markup.
I find raw HTML much easier to work with, more expressive, easier to
collaborate on via DVCS, and better documented, than wiki markup.
> Membership? We have free slots which you may make use of if you ask for it:
> A location to develop an OSGeo developed standard? We could set up an
> OSGeo wiki page, or put onto OSGeo's subversion directory if you wish.
> An email list to discuss the standard? This standards at lists.osgeo.org is
> probably the right place for that. Carl Reed monitors this email list,
> and provides a direct link back into the OGC through this list.
> A forum to inform OSGeo of OGC activities? The OGC does have public
> email list to announce upcoming standards activities. I don't think we
> need to duplicate that.
> Anything else?
> On 01/06/13 22:48, Adrian Custer wrote:
>> On 6/1/13 8:15 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> I'm moving this email thread from discuss at lists.osgeo.org to
>>> standards at lists.osgeo.org.
>> Okay, Hello everyone,
>>> It is a good idea for OSGeo members have the opportunity to participate
>>> in OGC activities, and have a voice to air OSGeo opinions and concerns.
>> Yes, that was the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding.
>>> I think that we are already reasonably close to having that goal.
>>> * OSGeo members can get access to OGC through the 5 OGC membership slots
>>> on offer .
>>> * OGC did disseminate OSGeo's "Open Letter re Geoservices REST API".
>> Okay, so we agree the goal of 'having an opportunity to participate'
>> has been met.
>>> What is missing is an opportunity to share OGC information with the
>>> general public, which in turn would give the general public the
>>> opportunity to comment and provide feedback. (This is a general OGC
>>> issue to address, as the OGC use "access to OGC" as a means to attract
>>> funded members).
>> Right, it is an OGC problem. It also arose from ancient Imaginary
>> Property concerns from the early participants who wanted re-assurance
>> about the consequences of their participation in the discussions.
>> Given the past decade long history where none of that has been an
>> issue, perhaps that concern can now be put to rest. I have been
>> pushing the OGC on this for a few years now.
>>> Currently OSGeo doesn't have a vote at the OGC, which is something we
>>> might want to ask for. If we are to ask for a vote from OGC, we would
>>> need to be confident that we would have volunteers with sufficient time
>>> to review the material required to vote. Such reviewing will take quite
>>> a bit of time, but if we have volunteers willing to do the work, I think
>>> we have a good case to ask for such a vote.
>> That is a good point, that we might want to do preparation on our
>> side. Because the volume of work is such that *no one* actually reads
>> all the standards (probably not even the OGC Architecture Board), OGC
>> policy usually proceeds by objection. So our work might be limited to
>> informing OSGeo about upcoming votes and asking for any reactions. The
>> absence of reactions is indication of the lack of opposition.
>>> With regards to developing standards, I think it valuable for OSGeo
>>> members to be involved in standards development, but that already
>>> happens. (OSGeo members take part in OGC testbeds, using OGC processes).
>>> I don't think it appropriate for OSGeo to develop standards outside of
>>> the OGC.
>> Why not? There are lots of cases for it. For example, the 'Shapefile'
>> standard has never been published. I feel it is entirely appropriate
>> for the collective wisdom of free software implementations to come up
>> with the 'Openshape Fileset Standard' which completes the published
>> ESRI spec to have a full specification. The expertise on this is just
>> as much here as at the OGC. Similarly, GeoPNG seems like a better fit
>> here than at the OGC.
>> That is not to say that these standards must live here forever. They
>> might well then be taken over by the OGC just like some OGC Standards
>> are republished as ISO standadards.
>>> I suggest the way to move forward is for OSGeo to propose a process,
>>> which is approved at the next board meeting on 6 June, and which the
>>> board forwards onto OGC.
>> A process for what?
>>> Adrian, I suggest you start by putting together such a proposal which we
>>> can refine, then include at .
>> A proposal for what?
>> The only work I want to do right now on this front is
>> (1) get a membership (either paid by me or one of the OSGeo
>> memberships) and start writing up trimesterly 'updates on the OGC' for
>> the OSGeo membership, and
>> (2) write up 'GeoPNG' ('GeoTIFF' like extensions for PNG) and the
>> 'Openshape Fileset Standard' (which finally completes the Shapefile
>> standard for all the implementation details, and may standardize index
>> When those are written, I hope to canvas the OSGeo membership for
>> feedback, analysis, and enthusiasm. If no one cares, then they will
>> not live here, and may become addenda to the WMS 2.0 standards. If
>> OSGeo folk like them and want to implement them, then they can live
>> here. GeoPNG is my own creation, Openshape however arises from the
>> collective experience here (cough Frank cough) and so makes the most
>> sense as living at OSGeo.
>> The only question right now is where the drafts live. Once they take
>> concrete form, they will live on a family server, pocz.org. If OSGeo
>> wants, they could move to the OSGeo space. The latter would give extra
>> weight to OSGeo, the former is totally neutral. The only hiccup is
>> that the drafts are written in HTML not in .doc (OGC style) or in wiki
>> (OSGeo style); I don't know where html can live at OSGeo.
>> PS. We are waiting for arnulf who seems to be on one of his 'retreats
>> from the Internet' right now; he'll re-appear, bye and bye.
>>>  http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_membership
>>> On 01/06/13 01:54, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>> I agree, let's get you moving on this, so, comments inline below:
>>>> On 2013-05-31 10:45 AM, Adrian Custer wrote:
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>> On the front of becoming one of the liaison members, I would
>>>>> guidance on procedure. Do we generate a formal letter to me and the
>>>>> or do we not yet have any procedure for this? I have just now asked
>>>>> Barbara Sherman of the OGC if she is aware of any procedure on her
>>>>> I would like to get this squared away quickly and easily.
>>>> See Frank's earlier response. Arnulf and Mike are currently managing
>>>> this, so, usually someone like Arnulf will send an email (CCing you) to
>>>> Barbara at OGC referring you for one of the Associate memberships.
>>>> Arnulf can you do this for Adrian? (with you and Mike's approval of
>>>> Note that my Associate membership was renewed on 11 April.
>>>> I feel that having someone like you championing our efforts will
>>>> help me
>>>> also to get more involved in the Standards.
>>>>> On the front of OSGeo building deeper ties with the OGC and, perhaps
>>>>> becoming a voting member someday, I think we should move forwards on a
>>>>> number of fronts jointly.
>>>> Becoming a voting member would greatly help the feeling of being
>>>> involved, and give the OSGeo foundation a stronger voice in standards
>>>>> The first is clearly discussion and openness, letting Carl, the
>>>>> head of
>>>>> the TC and Mark, the president of the OGC both know that this is
>>>>> something we are seeking and towards which we plan to work.
>>>>> A second front might be to become more active on the Standards Front.
>>>>> There has been some recent interest in OSGeo taking on some Standards
>>>>> related activity, where certainly being vocal and offering productive
>>>>> critiques could be productive. It may also prove useful to do more.
>>>>> example, I am planning to write up a number of format standards in the
>>>>> next six months and so it might make sense for me to develop some of
>>>>> them within OSGeo. The standards would require buy in from this
>>>>> community anyhow, so perhaps developing them here would give this
>>>>> community some more leverage in the Standards game. I'll do the
>>>>> bulk of
>>>>> the work first and then get back to you all on whether they make sense
>>>>> at OSGeo and how they could start life here. In the interim, OSGeo
>>>>> consider how it could host 'standards focused projects' rather than
>>>>> 'software focused projects' or 'community focused projects'. I'm not
>>>>> sure that requires more work than agreeing it should be allowed. It
>>>>> could be part of 'labs' to stay informal or some other procedure might
>>>>> be invented.
>>>> re: standards: I've also heard some back-channel talk of standards
>>>> activity within OSGeo. Whatever we do though, as you said earlier it's
>>>> very important that we work closely with Carl and the OGC (we have an
>>>> MoU signed with the OGC so that this can happen).
>>>> re: projects: I feel that your passion will help us in being more open
>>>> to projects in general. As you've said before to me, we're part of a
>>>> larger community and we must realize this. (I don't have the answers
>>>> in how we do this specifically, but, keeping this in the back of our/my
>>>> minds is the first step I feel)
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> Standards mailing list
>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Standards