All, I'm pretty much in the same camp as Jeroen has described below.
The original advertised capabilities from OGC were to develop a set of common and documented standards that could be used as interoperable building blocks. It was supposed to be a nice and easy way to say that I, (or we) as developer(s) is/are adhering to a standards approach. It was supposed to be easy to rally around. As noted elsewhere in this thread the KML stuff seemed to fracture the OGC universe somewhat. I had a hard time with its introduction as a standard at the time as well. Each of these new introductions of processes seem to fracture the original OGC intents even further as far as being a set of standards to point at. Now even after having said all of this, how does the community maintain a standards approach while still embracing change. New approaches need to be vetted and possibly approved as to what they are are and what their capabilities are. The bigger piece here seems to be the missing aspects of description needed by the end users of the standards, and about what those standards are really capable of, and second, and probably more important, how popular it is to the "Open" community. I have no idea how a popularity ranking might occur, but it would allow for all sorts of approaches with various standards being introduced but also demonstrate which ones are being used the most. Hmmm, maybe OGC needs an "Incubation" stage of adoption, which lets a following build (if it's there) or not. Bobb -----Original Message----- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Ticheler Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:42 AM To: bruce.bannerman.osgeo Cc: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Would you be concerned if the "GeoServices REST API" became an OGC standard? 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
