[OSGeo-Standards] Does OSGeo really "understand" OGC?

[Tom Kralidis]

Even: given the MOU renewal in 2022, OSGeo now has an associate membership
with an unlimited number of seats for OSGeo Charter Members.

Given the considerable OSGeo implementations on things like W*S as well as
(these days) OGC APIs, I would say OGC is quite keen on OSGeo
implementations, although OGC APIs are "higher level" than CRS things per
se.  Having said this, and I don't know the details of what's going on in
CRS SWG, I think it's valuable to have a discussion with OGC from an OSGeo
membership perspective.  I will reach out to you offline as a next step.

Happy Holidays to you and everyone.

..Tom


On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 6:52 PM Even Rouault via Standards <
standards at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> I'm definitely done with the CRS SWG. I had resigned once, so I'm not
> sure if I can resign one more time lol. There's too much bad faith over
> there. I don't remember if we have a limiter number of seats with OGC,
> but if so, take back mine. Hopefully someone will have a more productive
> use of it than me.
>
> Le 17/12/2024 à 19:27, Even Rouault via Standards a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is not going to be politically correct, but maybe this will serve
> > as a testimony for people considering being involved in standards
> > group. I've been *so* frustrated over the past years with the way the
> > OGC CRS working group operates. OGC doesn't work like our OSGeo
> > communities do, and I'm still not fully understanding what's going on
> > there. There is an absurd trend of creating standards/formats for the
> > sake of it apparently, and a total lack of pragmatism and ignoring
> > open implementations. My experience up to now has been:
> >
> > - the CRS SWG creating this netCDF-based GGXF (Geodetic Grid eXchange
> > Format) as a reaction to PROJ GTG (geodetic TIFF grids:
> > https://proj.org/en/stable/specifications/geodetictiffgrids.html). End
> > result: no open implementation of GGXF and apparently no open data
> > production under GGXF. On the contrary we see geodetic grid producers
> > release under GTG.
> >
> > - the current work item of the CRS SWG is CRS-JSON
> > (https://github.com/opengeospatial/CRS-JSON-Encoding). So this thing
> > is supposed to build on top of PROJJSON
> > (https://proj.org/en/stable/specifications/projjson.html) that has
> > been deployed for more than 5 years, but the current trend seems to be
> > they are going to diverge from it in a backwards incompatible way,
> > just because they can (or because they want to play with some UML ->
> > JSONSchema conversion tool).
> >
> > Maybe the OSGeo-OGC MOU is still valuable to have some advanced
> > warning to what's going on on OGC side and trying to influence, but
> > there's obviously little consideration from OGC side on OSGeo
> > implementations.
> >
> > Even
> >
> --
> http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
> Butcher of all kinds of standards, open or closed formats. At the end,
> this is just about bytes.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20241223/a8db2890/attachment.htm>