[OSGeo-Standards] Input required from OSGeo Standards List Members

Sun Sep 5 04:34:28 PDT 2021

Hey Bruce,
I've personally had a career shift into tech writing, and thought I was
moving away from the spatial domain. But then wanted to solve glossary
problems and it turns out that OGC and OSGeo are quite advanced in this
space and provide a good testing ground. For the rest of my interest, see
Rob's email.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 15:01, Rob Atkinson <ratkinson at ogc.org> wrote:

> Hi Bruce, et al
>
> Just a heads up that there are a couple of threads of activity which may
> be able to support this work.
>
> first, I am participating on behalf of OGC with OsGEO and ISO reps on
> project to explore interoperability of Glossary content between
> organisations.  This is not generally a "first class concern" - but I
> encourage community input to influence OGC to publish machine readable
> versions of terminology (and improve consistency and cross-referencing
> between various uses of the same or similar terminology).
>
> A key part of this is publication of technical specifications such as data
> models and schemas in a consistent canonical Web-friendly manner (not
> expecting OsGEO community to have the right version of a proprietary UML
> tool to find machine-readable documentation on schema elements for
> example).
>
> A second thread I have been discussing with Codrina Ilie is around better
> describing the OGC (and ISO and potentially wider) ecosystem of standards
> and how they relate.  OGC has me actively designing improved ways of
> achieving this.  For example
>
> http://defs-dev.opengis.net/vocprez/object?uri=http%3A//www.opengis.net/def/docs/10-140r2
>
> shows a range of cross references between standards,  We're also looking
> at deconstructing key standards so the implementable "conformance classes"
> are directly visible and citable, allowing specifications of standards
> conformance to be done at a level that can be used to drive testing (citing
> the containing specification document is not explicit, and citations
> without specifying versions cant be tested)
>
> e.g.
>
>
> http://defs-dev.opengis.net/vocprez/object?uri=http://www.opengis.net/def/docs/15-111r1
>
> General principles (e.g. FAIR) are expressed here:
> https://www.ogc.org/def-server
>
> Happy to hear feedback about potential uses of this information, or other
> things the OGC can do to publish its standards in more accessible ways. For
> OsGEO related matters please cc Codrina
>
>
> *Rob AtkinsonSenior Research Engineer | Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)*
> Mobile: 61-419-202-973
> ratkinson at ogc.org <JFath at ogc.org> | ogc.org
>
>
> *Sign up for OGC News*
> <https://ogc.us4.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=704e02f81107a6caab1568067&id=4e4528fd9d>
>
> <https://www.ogc.org/webinars>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 10:56 AM Bruce Bannerman <
> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Standards List Members,
>>
>> We have approximately 160 members subscribed to this mailing list.
>>
>> I assume that you have subscribed to the Standards list as you have some
>> interest in Open Spatial Standards.
>>
>> We have an excellent opportunity to help shape the future of open spatial
>> standards with the proposed new Memorandum of Understanding between OSGeo
>> and OGC.
>>
>> To date, I have been disappointed at the very limited community input
>> into this process.
>>
>> This is your opportunity to drive what we do with open spatial standards.
>> Don’t wait for others to do the work for you.
>>
>>
>> I call on all list members to provide some feedback to this list on:
>>
>>
>>    - what inspired you to subscribe to this list;
>>    - what you want from being a member of this list; and
>>    - your review of the proposed new OSGeo/OGC MOU (see context below).
>>
>>
>> Please don’t be shy, there are no right or wrong responses!
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 Aug 2021, at 00:55, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone: hope you are all doing well.  Per subject and [1][2], we
>> have been working
>> with OGC to renew our Memorandum of Understanding, and now have a draft
>> (Exhibit A) of
>> the MOU for your review and comment.
>>
>> Please see [3] for your review, comment and input.  Anyone with the link
>> should be able to
>> comment in the document.
>>
>> This is an important time for the updated MOU.  Open Source and Open
>> Standards are
>> natural, healthy and evolving, and this MOU will grow the collaboration
>> between our
>> organizations especially given OGC's increasing focus on developers.
>> Note that the MOU
>> provides OSGeo an Associate Membership as well as the opportunity for
>> input into the next
>> generation of compliance testing (CITE).
>>
>> Input and feedback is requested by Friday, 03 September 2021 at 12h UTC.
>>
>> If there are no major issues, we will put the MOU for approval at the F2F
>> Board meeting following
>> FOSS4G 2021.
>>
>> If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> On behalf of those involved in updating the MOU (OGC, OSGeo MOU Review
>> Team).
>>
>> ..Tom
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/MoU_OGC/Review_2020
>> [2] https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/osgeo/todo/issues/80
>> [3]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LNbDCkmjqfOtrUjOLkYNNhKhtPzXI_uCAC4R-l8drbY
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>
> <https://www.ogc.org/webinars>
>

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technical Writer, Google
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20210905/2fa5d84d/attachment.html>