All, Having read this thread I support what has been said by Adrian, Bruce and others. If anything, acceptance of a set of standards that basically replicates what W*S standards already do will confuse customers. Maybe that is exactly what esri hopes to achieve, it definitely doesn't help our (the geospatial community) business. And as Bruce states, it will have serious impact on the OGC credibility. As OSGeo I can imagine that we then decide to start our own standardization process and build a standards brand around OSGeo products. Not a nice perspective, let's hope OGC won't go down that route. Jeroen
On 6 mei 2013, at 01:08, bruce.bannerman.osgeo <bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cameron, > > My personal opinion is that if this proposal was accepted, it would be a bad > move for OGC. > > Remember that OGC is a community and its Technical Committee membership are > the people who vote on the acceptance of Standards. The TC comprises many > different organisations. > > > I do understand that OGC are trying to be inclusive in their processes and to > try and cater for alternative approaches to a problem, much the same as OSGeo > does in supporting multiple projects that essentially handle similar use > cases (e.g. GeoServer, MapServer and Degree). > > I have also personally witnessed ESRI's commitment to helping to further the > development of Open Spatial Standards through their work on OGC Working > Groups and at OGC Technical Committee meetings. > > ESRI also have made a valid point in their response to the 'NO' vote for the > GeoServices REST API that the OGC has already allowed alternate approaches > with the acceptance of netCDF as a data format and KML as a combined > data/presentation format. > > With the GeoServices REST API, I think that the approach proposed: > > - is very divisive for the OGC community. > - essentially appears to propose an alternate way for working with spatial > services that does not utilise or build on the W*S suite of services that > have been developed through robust community processes for in excess of a > decade. > - does not provide REST bindings to the W*S suite of standards that have been > widely implemented in a range of software. > - will result in confusion within the user community that are trying to > utilise 'OGC' services. > > > If this approach were to be adopted, I believe that OGC will go too far down > the alternate solution approach and will risk losing its public acceptance as > one of the key leaders of open spatial standards. > > > I'm interested in hearing other OSGeo members opinions as to how this > proposal would affect their projects. > > Would you consider implementing the GeoServices REST API within your projects? > > If you did, would you maintain support for both it and traditional W*S > services? > > Bruce _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
