[OSGeo-Standards] OGC vote on LAS 1.4 as a community standard

Peter Baumann p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
Tue Jan 31 00:21:53 PST 2017


On 01/30/2017 07:06 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Carl Reed <carl.n.reed at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Howard -
>> Some clarification on GeoRSS. As one of the original 5 who defined and documented GeoRSS, I disagree with some of your statements. The OGC had zero (0) input or oversight of the GeoRSS development. Sure, at the time Raj and I were OGCs staff and the others were OGC members. And later, others (non OGC) joined the discussion. The group decided to define GeoRSS outside the OGC process - but still based on the consensus of the group. There were never any license or IP issues. GeoRSS was released under CC Attribution ShareAlike 2.5.  The original GeoRSS collaborators recently agreed to move to CC Attribution ShareAlike 4.0. Under the OGC Community Standard P&P there is no (zero) requirement to transfer ownership or intellectual property to the OGC - just the rights as per CC 4.0. Further, there is no requirement for the OGC to take over maintenance. Finally, there is no requirement for normative changes to the document - unless an error is encountered.
>> The GeoRSS White Paper I wrote back in 2006 or so has a detailed history of the development and final deployment of the GeoRSS spec: http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=15755
> The question was never about the IP of the document, and my contention was never about you or Raj's contributions as OGC staff to it. My complaint was the authority OGC had over promulgating any changes by pulling it under its umbrella outweighed the open group's. That itself wasn't a big deal except for the fact that at the time there was no way for unaffiliated individuals to participate in any further iteration of the document within OGC. These issues (individual working group participation, open source participation) have since been fixed, but at the time they had me and a few others blowing off. A little too much for myself, I must regrettably add.

So, based on an outdated perception of OGC, you decide to not contribute where
lots of expert people in the OGC spend a lot o their time to establish
technically sound specs.
I can understand that this hard work is not everybody's deal, in particular when
coming from organizations that enjoy solving problems on political level.
Conversely, one might understand that the hard working guys may see it from a
different angle.

> GeoJSON developed when, where, and how it did as a reaction to that. It is encouraging that OGC is nurturing more open approaches like has been happening with GeoPackage, which otherwise might have been yet another outside-the-org specification without improvements in how OGC was allowed to operate.

Not sure all intended in this thread constitutes an improvement. As OSGeo claims
it accepts democratic principles it amazes me that democratic processes of OGC
are not taken serious enough.

> I'm encouraged by OGC looking to adopt LAS as a community standard so long as it commits to not iterating the document itself. OGC has said exactly that in many forums. The ASPRS LAS committee's authority to iterate the document, such as it is, shouldn't be overshadowed. As a practical matter, there might be one more squeeze of the tube left to address some lingering issues, but it won't be an innovation center going forward anyway. 

In other words: OGC should give a rubberstamp, but without any opportunity of
correcting possible flaws. Aka self-service shop for branding.

> I hope OGC's Point Cloud Working Group focuses on web services for point clouds, and with the LAS recognition, it stays out of the point cloud formats fray. Web services are something with which OGC has lots of experience and its community actively use. It just so happens my company has an excellent full stack of open source approach that I think would be an excellent place to start. See my OGC PCWG talk about principles here https://vimeo.com/183815123 or my recent ASPRS GeoBytes seminar about the actual implementation at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/1047966902964876033

me too. And many more companies too. And many universities. And so on.

Let's turn the approach around: if there is an interest in OGC standardizing it
then OGC experts need to be convinced, to spend extra time, instead of going
with their families in this time. Come to the meeting (join virtually if you
don't want to travel), convince people - the ball is in your arena. Costs are
not an excuse since we have free conference services to dial in.

Thoughts from someone doing the hard work for 10+ years,

> Howard
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)

More information about the Standards mailing list