[OSGeo-Standards] OGC liaison memberships

[Arnulf Christl]

Jeff,
right. One (sort of non-technical) reason why it eventually failed. It
may be one of the omissions of the OGC TC (Technical Committee) and the
OAB - we should have clarified this earlier on in the process - and
could have spared esri and non-esri folks in the work group some hard work.

When we eventually did discuss it in the OAB the quick resolution was
that backwards compatibility cannot be made a rule for further
development of any standard. Full stop.

Shucks, by now everybody must think that I am a hard core standards
wonk. I am not. Just to make sure: I like it messy, diversity and chaos
are my third and last name - as in AC/DC

:-)

Have fun,
Arnulf

On 07.06.2013 11:55, Jeff Harrison wrote:
> Yes, developing a candidate standard can be straightforward... as
> long as you don't include the strict 'backwards compatibility'
> requirement.
> 
> Regards, Jeff
> 
> 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


-- 
Arnulf Christl (Executive Director)
Open Source Geospatial Software, Data and Services
http://www.metaspatial.net