I am rather tempted by this topic - I would love to join a committee on
this topic if it is created.
However I don't think it should be created - the problem of how the
standards process (ISO and OGC) can benefit from free and open source
geospatial software is something for the standards bodies to work out.
We can facilitate this as a point of contact; but that is probably where
we should stop.
I repeat let them come to us - in many cases this already happens.
The OGC has included some open source software in its Open Web Services
initiatives - GeoSever was used as a reference implementation against
the CITE WFS 1.1 tests for example. This is a sensible approach to
making the WFS 1.1 specification actually useful; in addition to a
document, conformance test engine, they now have some source code people
with questions can download to see how it is done. Good on them; their
standard is all the better for it (and frankly more believable as a
standard).
We should stick with our mandate; making great open source software; if
you want to join the standards police there are a couple of options. Pay
to play is the one causing grief here, you can also review their
documents as part of their public review period, and finally you can
hunt an open source project that is implementing that standard and
contribute in code. The last option is a bit weak; I contribute code to
the GeoAPI project, and was able to contribute to a working group report
last month, but as I am not an OGC member it fell upon others to attend
the meeting in Paris and make the presentation.
The borderline case here is "Tile Map Service". When the occasion merits
we do like to work together. We can define shared assumptions,
conventions or in the case of "Tiled Map Service" additional metadata in
order to collaborate more effectively. If some of our members are also
OGC members they can trot these ideas out to a working group; having
several implementations to point to for working examples should make
that a fairly efficient process.
In the past I was able to get into the discussion on "Open Web Context"
document (think Web Map Context document but for WFS, WMS and WCS). It
sounds like the OGC has had a change of policy and I will now need to
pay $400 for this ability? For most of my feedback they will get it
anyways - OGC members take part in the same open source projects I do -
this will be more of an example of both organizations leaning on these
individuals. At worst the OGC will just be inefficient - they release
documents for public review (and if they are silly or unimplementable we
can always just laugh - think of GML3 where the schema was not valid).
I understand that the OGC has an arrangement with ISO where they have a
well defined mechanism for sharing ideas (cross publication or some
such). If we do feel strongly that our involvement is needed we could
ask our board to pursue talks with the OGC to set up something similar.
For projects that interact with the standards process already they will
have members in both organizations already.
Cheers,
Jody
Lorenzo Becchi wrote:
I guess this thread is pretty hot, there are many sub-threads and
maybe a good solution could be to set up a mailing list, for the
beginning, as: ogc AT osgeo.org
Trying to be practical I can offer myself to administer the list as
I'm doing with the Spanish Chapter and the Spanish GIS Book.
There will be the possibility to define possible actions,
participation to OGC meeting, support to OSGeo new standards (as for
Tile Map Service), creating or not a Committee ecc ecc.
I guess we can, as minimum target, set up a lobby of OSGeo softwares
to promote effective interoperability of OGC standards.
ciao
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
