In our case, nesting won't help (if project XXX selects "OGC" as its
standards support in the wordpress backend, the reader of our site will
assume that all OGC standards are met by project XXX - so yes I agree
that the best thing is to delete the single "OGC" option.
As for other "standards", we will need to specify that somehow.
Possibly we can specify this directly in the description? For example:
Web Processing Service (WPS)
would become:
OGC: Web Processing Service (WPS)
and
Georeferenced Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF)
would become:
Other: Web Processing Service (WPS)
thoughts?
-jeff
On 2017-08-22 3:22 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
Note that the issue here is not nested or not; the issue is that we must
be careful with the use of the word "standard" on our new site. -jeff
On 2017-08-22 3:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
Never mind, you can have nesting, so OGC can contain WFS, WMS, WCS,
etc...
--
Jody Garnett
On 22 August 2017 at 11:09, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com
<mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
You can click on the number, in this case 11, and see a list of the
projects implementing the OGC standard. I am deleting it now...
--
Jody Garnett
On 22 August 2017 at 10:17, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com
<mailto:even.roua...@spatialys.com>> wrote:
__
On mardi 22 août 2017 14:07:04 CEST Jeff McKenna wrote:
> Many of these don't make any sense to me, if you ask me my
opinion. We
> should be using the list of OGC standards and entering them
into
> wordpress, and not allowing editors to edit/add new
non-standards. But
> that is all my own opinion :) Then we can link to these
standards. As
> of now anyone can create a 'standard' and post it on the
beta site,
> seems very odd to me.
Just a remainder that OGC is not the only source of standards.
For example, GeoJSON is IETF RFC 7946 for example (and before
last year, was a community standard). GeoTIFF can also be
considered as a defacto standard, etc.. You have also the ISO
standards for metadata, etc...
Probably a loose definition for standards could be a
specification available somewhere (potentially behind a paywall
like ISO...), and implemented by at least several
software/vendors.
Even
>
> Is my opinion here too strong? For now I chose just to edit
the
> descriptions for all of these 'standards', valid or not.
>
> What do you prefer?
>
> -jeff
>
> On 2017-08-22 1:59 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> > Thanks jeff, I just noticed that work had been done in the
GeoServer
> > meeting :) We also spotted one standard "OGC" which does
not make sense.
> >
> > Do you think it is worthwhile linking to these standards?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jody Garnett
> >
> > On 22 August 2017 at 09:42, Jeff McKenna
<jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com
<mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>
> >
> > <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com
<mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>>> wrote:
> > Since we have so many website 'editors' (currently 84),
please if
> > you do create a new "standard" (double-quote use is on
purpose, as
> > many of these are not actual standards) when you are
editing your
> > project page, please let me know and I will edit the new
standard
> > and add a description - I have just went through all of
these
> > "standards" and set descriptions for each of the 27
"standards".
> >
> > For example:
> > (WPS)
> >
> > will now appear on the project pages as:
> >
> > Web Processing Service (WPS)
> >
> > This consistency makes it much easier to read for new users
to our
> > site.
> >
> > thanks all!
> >
> > -jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss