Two things, I don't have a ton of time to write. First, the relationship between OGC and ISO is murky. It's unclear who leads who. They have agreements to cooperate on things, and I think perhaps they feed both ways. WMS 1.3 is the version of WMS that the ISO accepts, many of the modifications where made for them, from what I understand. The primary one being the dropping of SLD, not mentioning it in the documentation, but having it be a completely separate thing. I don't really know which one to follow is 'best'.
> Back to an immediate reality: How important is it that Geotools be > limited > by the currently published standards, and how would you like us nD > coverage > folks to keep track of the "additions"? I've personally always been about taking the standards as 'inspiration', but not slavishly following them by any means. If they fall short, improvise a solution. Martin's always been the one to follow the standards very closely, but the majority of standards that he has done, at least the ones that are widely used in the code, are ones that have much more clear specs behind them. When I worked on DataStores, we used the WFS spec as an 'inspiration', but by no means stuck to it. There were additions needed, and indeed some, like reprojection, are now appearing in WFS specs. So I'd say, just go for it, find the best solution where the current specs are lacking. Document additions in code, but don't worry about it too much. Of course, this is just my opinion, there's no official geotools policy, except that standards are a very useful thing to organize collaboration around. We're practical towards it, not slavishly devoted. best regards, Chris Quoting Bryce L Nordgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Keep reading. Background is boring but necessary. > > As part of the coverage support stuff which I've been trying to > squeeze in > between system administration disasters, I think I've tracked down > how to > get my paws on "draft standards", like 19101-2, 19115-2, 19130, and > other > potentially relevant documents. As noted below, this seems to be a > problem > that a modest amount of cash money can easily solve. (NOTE: "Modest" > compared with a $10000 Technical Committee membership in the OGC.) I > believe that if I cough up $800, I can not only get access to these > standards which aren't scheduled for publication until late 2007, but > I can > actually help them take shape. > > Please note : the membership below is not a membership in the OGC. > Turns > out that ISO has one member from each member country. For the US, > that > member is ANSI (American National Standards Institute). For the US, > ANSI > is responsible for forming and validating groups of cash-money-paying > "experts" to provide input to the various Technical Comittees of ISO. > The > group below is one of these validated groups of national experts, and > as > far as I know is the _only_ group capable of casting the USA vote on > ISO > standards coming from TC211, which is the Geospatial TC. Strikingly, > I did > not see the OGC on their membership list, and I was under the > impression > that the OGC was a US organization. > > So this begs the question: what's the relationship between OGC and > ISO? > The OGC has been "adopting" various ISO standards to replace the ones > they > wrote themselves, but the copies on the OGC website are working > drafts or > final drafts or something other than the actual final international > standard. So when differences pop up between the version that OGC is > distributing and the official ISO standard, which one is > OGC-compliant? It > would seem to me that claiming ISO compliance is a far less ambiguous > act. > > On the other hand, the OGC has a broader base of approved standards > on the > plate now. ISO has no WFS/WCS/WMS spec published yet, but WFS/WMS > are > currently in the works. Presumably WCS will follow. GML is on deck, > but I > haven't seen a title which screams out "SLD". > > Here's where I want to ask the list's advice, because you all have > been > involved with the OGC process for longer than me: It seems that OGC > has > made a decision to adopt the ISO 191xx series of International > Standards > where they coincide with OGC standards. Is this in fact the case? > If so, > it implies that participating in ISO is a more permanent effort, > whereas > participating in OGC efforts is more of a stopgap initial effort. It > also > implies that Geotools could lead more and play catch-up less were > there to > be an "ISO" module whose contents would slowly migrate to "main" as > various > ISO standards are accepted by the OGC. It might also provide users a > chance to have a longer preview of the next release and adapt their > code to > it. > > Back to an immediate reality: How important is it that Geotools be > limited > by the currently published standards, and how would you like us nD > coverage > folks to keep track of the "additions"? > > Keep this in mind over the next few months. > > Stirring the pot, > Bryce > > > ----- Forwarded by Bryce L Nordgren/RMRS/USDAFS on 11/01/2005 05:28 > PM > ----- > > "Garner, > Jennifer" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To > > "Bryce L Nordgren" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 11/01/2005 01:30 > cc > PM "Barra, Lynn" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject > RE: Participation in ISO/TC211 > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bryce - > > US organizations that want to participate in the development of > ISO/TC > 211 standards need to become members of the US Technical Advisory > Group > - INCITS/L1. Membership on INCITS/L1 costs $800 for one principal > and > one alternate representative. The INCITS/L1 web site is available > at: > > http://www.incits.org/tc_home/l1.htm > > Please contact Lynn Barra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to request membership on > INCITS/L1. > > Best regards - > > Jennifer T. Garner > Associate Director, Standards Programs > INCITS/Information Technology Industry Council > 1250 Eye Street, NW - Suite 200 > Washington, DC 20005 > 202.626.5737 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > website: www.incits.org > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. > Download > it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own > Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > ---------------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: https://webmail.limegroup.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
