To echo Allan, I don't see this work as moving away from OGC standards.
On the contrary, I view it as helping the OGC, by leveraging and
adapting their interfaces for more uses. I intend to serve GeoJSON
through WFS, and indeed when we added network link KML support to
GeoServer we did so through WMS. And we continue to add more standard
support, with certified WFS 1.1 and WCS 1.0 coming out soon. But that
does not mean we wait for OGC approval on everything we do.
And I do hope the work that we do will feedback in to OGC standards,
drawing inspiration from GeoRSS, which started ad-hoc and is now
endorsed by the OGC. I'm used to working in an open source manner,
communicating over email and IRC, and I simply can't afford to attend
quarterly OGC meetings all over the globe to talk about things. So I
hope by working in the best way I know how I can contribute to their
standards process.
And I agree with Allan that some OGC specs are not that usable, and I'm
working to make them so. I still feel WFS is a good spec, but it's
weighed down by the fact people think it's tied to GML. So making
GeoJSON output for it seems ideal to me. I think WFS-T is a very solid
API, but it doesn't include any versioning, so we're working on that
(http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOS/Versioning+WFS). And yes, I hope
to feed our work back in to WFS in a future revision, but until that
point the best way for us to work is to collaborate with everyone. Then
when it comes in to the OGC it's something working in the world and
tested under real conditions, instead of a group of architects getting
together to design a blueprint for a cathedral that might fall apart or
just be too hard to build when it's finally released to the world.
best regards,
Chris
Allan Doyle wrote:
On Feb 6, 2007, at 19:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've been following the discussions on JSON etc for GEO.
IMO:
I'm finding that Open Source spatial projects are getting increasing
attention from large organisations.
This is largely due to a strong support for OGC standards in key OS
projects and an organisation's desire for vendor neutrality.
While I can sympathise with performance concerns, I'd recommend that
projects do not move away from support for OGC Standards.
There has been a great deal of thought and effort into getting the
standards where they are today. If specific OGC standards are not
working or have problems, we as an industry need to work with OGC to
make sure that the issues are resolved.
Open Source geo projects were among the first to implement and OGC specs
and then those implementations have become widely used, thus helping to
bring about further acceptance of OGC specs.
I think it's in fact the case that those specs that have found their way
into widely used open source implementations are those specs that are
considered to be working or at least workable by the broader community.
If you want to know which OGC specs are not working, then to first order
look for those that are not implemented in open source.
Many individual OGC members have a pretty good idea of which of their
specs are usable and which are not. Furthermore, they also have a pretty
good idea of what kinds of specs the broader community needs. The
trouble is that OGC is a large organization with many different
constituents and a process that is, dare I say it? - rather ponderous.
There's no way someone on this list, working for a small, fast-moving,
mindshare and buzz-seeking startup can afford to wait for 18 months for
OGC to come up with a JSON Geo encoding. Particularly when there's no
guarantee that the spec would ever see the light of day.
There have been some rumblings coming from inside OGC recognizing this
and recognizing the need to adapt. I think it's a case of the barbarians
having to be at the gate before you can persuade anyone to start boiling
the oil.
Perhaps rather than try to fit geowanking with what is probably as
opposite to OGC as you can get, it might be the fact that guerilla spec
development is just the shot in the arm OGC needs to get enough internal
momentum going for a change.
Allan
Bruce
---------------------------------------
Bruce Bannerman
IT Solutions Architect - GIS
Department of Primary Industries - Victoria
Australia
Bruce dot Bannerman at dpi dot vic dot gov dot au
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
--Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
!DSPAM:1003,45c93423191287785049143!
--
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
begin:vcard
fn:Chris Holmes
n:Holmes;Chris
org:The Open Planning Project
adr:;;349 W. 12th Street, #3;New York;NY;10014;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Managing Director, Strategic Development
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://topp.openplans.org
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
