Thanks Arnulf. Regarding this last important comment, the GeoServices interface is already an open specification [1] that was submitted to the OpenWebFoundation (OWF) [2] to ensure non-proprietary use.
Indeed there is a huge opportunity to provide easy to use and flexible tools that talk to the numerous servers out there. Ideally any user or developer of the popular open-source tools should be agnostic and unaware of the details of the underlying specification or format. They just want their data in a {map,analysis,report,app}. While I was not a part of the OGC working group in any way - I have been in discussions on how to jumpstart any kind of real REST specification for years and finally gave up. :) I hope that path still happens in some way and includes full bidirectional support for any service. Andrew [1] GeoServices Specification 1.0 (2010): http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/geoservices-rest-spec.pdf [2] OpenWeb Foundation Agreement: http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/users-of-owf-agreements On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) <se...@arnulf.us> wrote: > I am still not convinced that the result of this standard would have > been detrimental to Open Source. How that? There is a good chance that > it would have opened up all current esri clients for Open Source code > because the proposed standard goes right into the underwear of esri's > ArcGIS. Having the specification in the OGC would have guaranteed that > it would not be dropped or changed in a proprietary whim. Every single > esri client would have had the chance to get some Open Source pieces > into their game, be it on the client or the server side. Then learn > that it is more stable, evolves quicker and can replace the other esri > stuff over time. Simple as that. > > Chance passed, but no problem, we'll get another one. > -- Andrew Turner t: @ajturner b: http://highearthorbit.com m: 248.982.3609
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss