[OSGeo-Standards] OGC liaison memberships

Jeff Harrison jharrison at thecarbonproject.com
Fri Jun 7 02:55:18 PDT 2013

Yes, developing a candidate standard can be straightforward... as long as you don't include the strict 'backwards compatibility' requirement.


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 7, 2013, at 5:41 AM, Arnulf Christl <arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net> wrote:

> On 07.06.2013 10:53, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> On 7/06/2013 3:06 AM, Adrian Custer wrote:
>>> 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
>> I feel it is preferable to have one organisation coordinating the
>> development of standards as it reduces the potential for creation of
>> competing and overlapping standards.
>> Over time the OGC has developed and refined processes and expertise in
>> developing standards. I feel it is preferable to improve on an existing
>> system, rather than starting again from scratch. To OGC's credit, they
>> have an excellent track record of listening to the community and
>> adopting new ideas, and as such we should consider this path first.
> Folks,
> maybe we can split the task of creating a standard into several steps. I
> do believe that OSGeo is a great place to develop something that can
> eventually become a regular standard. Let's call it a "candidate
> standard". Step one.
> Later on in the process the OGC should be the place to make it
> officially approved and set in stone. This includes nasty things like IP
> / patent protection, recognition as something stable, communication to
> the non-Open Source vendor world, etc. Step three.
> Funny enough this could work exactly like esri proposed the GeoServices
> REST API thing. Someone in the broader OSGeo realm develops something
> like - say the Web Map Tile Spec. Folks start to implement software
> around it, the community starts using it and it is generally accepted as
> worthwhile and usable. Step 2.
> One day OSGeo (or someone else) throws it into the OGC for broader
> inspection: Step 3. There is gets straightened out as a regular standard
> with all the nasty hard work, paper tigers included so that later maybe
> even ISO might eat it (Step 8) and eventually it gets approved - or
> rebutted. If the former it can become part of public procurement
> processes and everybody is happy. If the latter somebody is pissed off
> but the world is a little less regulated (wooha, cool!).
> Sounds straight forward, doesn't it?
> Cheers,
> Arnulf
> -- 
> Arnulf Christl (Chief Opinionator)
> Open Source Geospatial Software, Data and Services
> http://www.metaspatial.net
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

More information about the Standards mailing list