[OSGeo-Standards] Follow up from OSGeo board meeting

Tue Oct 29 23:14:21 PDT 2013

Nice break down. Not sure what you mean by a demo page, but projects such as GeoServer and deegree run the CITE tests.

Two bits of feedback, and two diagrams to back them up.

1) Want to only reward testing here, not implementing. 

To to emphasise that CITE TEAM Engine tests are being run, difference between certified being represented as:

(GeoServer used as an example here, based on CITE 1.3 build results )

To earn a WMS 1.3.0 badge GeoServer would need to link to the CITE test results.

2) For clients (remember the goal is to encourage clients where not tests are available) this is a place where OSGeo can recognise projects that include cross project testing as part of their release process.

(uDig used as an Example, geoserver and map server are tested during the release process of updating the user guide)

To earn a badge developer would have to link to their release procedure (noting where it includes the claimed testing).

3) If you really want to indicate that a protocol is only implemented ( note addition of one hex that does not cross the process boundary of the shape):

(GeoServer used as an example here, no WFS 2.0 cite tests are available, and no clients are tested during the release process)

But I honestly cannot think why we should offer a project anything for implementing without testing. 

-- 
Jody Garnett

On 29 October 2013 at 11:54:51 pm, Luis Bermudez (lbermudez at opengeospatial.org) wrote:

Hi Cameron and Jody,  

Very good idea to have testing categories attach to OSGeo-Live projects.  

I suggest these categories:  
- Implemented: The project believes implements correctly the standard. The project has not tested or there is no OGC test available.  
- Passed not certified: The project has passed the test but has not applied for certification.  
- Certified: The project has pass the test and is certified (has a license)  

The reason is that "passed" might get confused with "certified".  

How are you expecting to get this information? Will developers provide manually this information?  

If there are open source projects that maintain a demo page and pass OGC tests, let us further talk about waiving fees to become reference implementations.  

Current reference implementations: http://cite.opengeospatial.org/reference  
Tests in beta: http://cite.opengeospatial.org/te2/  

- Luis  

---------------------------------------------------  
Luis Bermudez, Ph.D.  
Director Compliance Program  
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)  
The OGC: Making Location Count  

Skype: bermudez_luis  
Twitter: @berdez  
Tel: +1 301 760 7323  
http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/lbermudez  

>  
>  
> From: Cameron Shorter  
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:06 PM  
> To: standards at lists.osgeo.org  
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] Follow up from OSGeo board meeting  
>  
> Jody has some valuable ideas below, which I think we could make very achievable.  
>  
> It would be straight forward for us to extend the OSGeo-Live template to describe the level of OGC standard certified an application is.  
>  
> I'd suggest there could be three levels of description:  
> "OGC <Standard> <Version> Used": The Project uses an OGC standard, but not run OGC CITE tests.  
>  
> "OGC <Standard> <Version> Passed": The Project has run OGC CITE tests, and believe they pass these tests.  
>  
> "OGC <Standard> <Version> Certified": The OGC has certified an application according to CITE.  
>  
> I'd be interested to hear OGC thinking on this.  
>  
> On 18/10/13 08:53, Jody Garnett wrote:  
>> The OSGeo board meeting today touched on interaction with the OGC, perhaps with the formation of a subcommittee (in case a single volunteer cannot be found to replace Adrian Custer).  
>>  
>> I have been thinking of a different problem, how OSGeo can benefit from our communication with the OGC.  
>>  
>> Initial interaction has focused on promoting OGC standards, but my concern is projects will stop caring. Indeed when I look at our projects implementing OGC services many are not CITE compliant, or have not taken on the cost of officially being certified even if they run the tests from a QA standpoint.  
>>  
>> So here are some ideas:  
>>  
>> * The incubation of the CITE TEAM engine is something obvious where OSGeo can help, and something I will check up on via the incubation list.  
>>  
>> * I would like to see OSGeo projects in the web mapping category, pass through CITE conformance tests. I understand there is a cost associated with officially passing these tests and getting a sticker. It would be good to negotiate to waive this fee, both to promote standards compliance, and show projects a benefit of participation. If the fee cannot be waived (stepping on OGC business model) then we should be able to provide our own "Tested" sticker.  
>>  
>> * For projects that the OGC is not in position to certify (such as the desktop and geospatial libraries). I would like to come up with some form of "implementing" or "tested" sticker. Criterial can be sending a screen snap of connecting to each OSGeo web service.  
>>  
>> I suspect the above activities could be co-ordinated with upgrading the version of the software package provided to OSGeo live. This would keep the qualification current, although I hesitate to volunteer groups for more work. Perhaps we can just include the "sticker" on the OSGeo live documentation pages as an incentive.  
>> --  
>> Jody Garnett  
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________  
>> Standards mailing list  
>>  
>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org  
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________  
> Standards mailing list  
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org  
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards  

_______________________________________________  
Standards mailing list  
Standards at lists.osgeo.org  
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20131030/ce6e0563/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cite_tested.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9221 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20131030/ce6e0563/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled.sketch.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20131030/ce6e0563/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled.sketch_1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11364 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20131030/ce6e0563/attachment-0005.png>