Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: OSGeo Charter Member Nomination: Stephan Meißl
Wow, I'm absolutely overwhelmed. Many thanks for all your support, this is really encouraging. cu Stephan On 07/21/2014 01:32 PM, Jorge Sanz wrote: > I forward Stephan Meißl nomination for the OSGeo Charter Membership elections. > > Best Regards > Jorge > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Helmut Kudrnovsky > Date: 2014-07-19 0:29 GMT+02:00 > Subject: OSGeo Charter Member Nomination: Stephan Meißl > To: c...@osgeo.org > Cc: Stephan Meißl > > > Dear CRO and OSGeo Community, > > as the nomination period for OSGeo Charter Member started right now > [1], it's a honor for me to nominate Stephan Meißl [2]. > > Stephan is a committer to MapServer [3] and also a member of the > MapServer PSC [4]. > > As well known in the OSGeo community, he has organized the wonderfull > OSGeo Code Sprint 2014 [5] [6] in Vienna which was great step forward > in community building between all the nice OSGeo projects. > > So I am convinced that Stephan will be very valuable OSGeo Charter Member. > > Best regards > Helmut Kudrnovsky > OSGeo Charter Member [7] > > [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014 > [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Schpidi > [3] https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/blob/master/COMMITERS > [4] http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html > [5] http://vienna2014.sprint.osgeo.org/ > [6] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Vienna_Code_Sprint_2014 > [7] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Hellik > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] INSPIRE Conference 2013 - UPDATES on the workshop
Hi all, same here, as said in the beginning I'm unfortunately not able to travel but will contribute material mainly from MapServer as needed. cu Stephan On 05/21/2013 08:45 PM, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for my later reply. > I agree with the suggested solution to split the workshop time, I don't > see another way to do this. > > As we discussed in the initial hangout, unfortunately I won't be able to > attend, but I will contribute with workshop material. > > Best regards, > Angelos > > On 05/21/2013 09:23 PM, Margherita Di Leo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> thank you for your thoughts. I'm a bit surprised that I didn't hear from >> other co-authors. At this point I would like to know who is planning to be >> there at the workshop anyway. >> >> Thanks >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Simone Giannecchini < >> simone.giannecch...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: >> >>> Ciao Jachym, >>> a few clarifications below... >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simone Giannecchini >>> == >>> GeoServer training in Milan, 6th & 7th June 2013! Visit >>> http://geoserver.geo-solutions.it for more information. >>> == >>> >>> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >>> @simogeo >>> Founder/Director >>> >>> GeoSolutions S.A.S. >>> Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 >>> 55054 Massarosa (LU) >>> Italy >>> phone: +39 0584 962313 >>> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >>> mob: +39 333 8128928 >>> >>> http://www.geo-solutions.it >>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Jachym Cepicky >>> wrote: Hi Madi, I still did not obtain any confirmation mail about proposed presentation - do you know by chance, how far the process is? As for the workshop, it seems odd to combine MapStore as concrete product with whole OSGeo stack and more dialogue-based workshop. I see them as two different topics for completely different auditorium. I would understand, that MapStore people would feel upset, if they would have to share their time with "pure" OSGeo. From my point of view, all decisions are bad (except having two full workshops accepted). I think, that the best option would than be to share the time with MapStore and gladly accept their offer kind 30:60 (rather 60:30 - OSGeo in general, MapStore as concrete example of local company using and developing OSGeo projects), if possible. >>> That was exactly my proposal :) >>> We also had to try and find a decent title as having two different >>> workshops using portions of the same time seemed misleading and >>> actually contraddicted what was asked from >>> the organizers. Therefore I suggested to split the time giving >>> precedence to the OSGEO based discussion and then hold the MapStore >>> workshop at the end. >>> >>> NOTE: This is nothing against MapStore. I wish them all the best and I think, they deserve full workshop time slot as well. INSPIRE conference committee forses us to compete as international organization with semi-local company (GeoSolution). This is simply not all right (or do I see it completely wrong?) >>> Well, life isn't perfect and we need to live with what we are while we >>> try to change things :) >>> I believe the solution we are proposing here is Ok (not perfect I >>> admit) as I believe leaves enough room for discussion >>> as well as as enough room for us (as in GeoSolutions) for showing a >>> bit of what we do. >>> I also think, this shows us, that OSGeo is not taken seriously as important partner to conference committee of INSPIRE conference and that brings me back to our SDI committee proposed earlier - I have to push it little bit further (I do not like pushing to hard, though). Thanks Jachym Dne 20.5.2013 15:47, Margherita Di Leo napsal(a): > Dear All, > > as correspondent author for the workshop proposal [1], I received an >>> email > from the INSPIRE Conference Organisers. Unfortunately, due to time and > space limitations, it is possible for them to only choose a small >>> number of > the submitted workshops to appear in the programme. Therefore their >>> request > was to combine, if possible, our workshop with the one submitted by >>> Simone > Giannecchini and Tobia Di Pisa: > > "Hands-on Introduction to create mash-ups for INSPIRE Services with > MapStore" > > Simone was in cc in this email. > I just had a Skype talk with Simone, and we individuated a couple of > possible scenarios: > > 1) Withdraw one of the two workshops; or > 2) Split the 90 minutes at our disposal in two. > > Of course this decision is up to all the co-authors. In case we decide >>> for > the second solution, Simone kindly offered to shrink his time to 30 > minutes, in order to allow the round table to take place in 60 minutes > comfortably. > > A
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] time for inspire committee at osgeo?
On 05/15/2013 01:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on some presentation about OSGeo relationship to INSPIRE > directive (some preliminary czech version of presentation, which should > be presented at this years INSPIRE conference [1]) > > And it came to my mind, that OSGeo does not have any body, related to > INSPIRE [2] > > While I agree, INSPIRE is mainly EU-only topic, I think, implementing > INSPIRE has big market potential and software, which does not indicate > support for INSPIRE is banned from to be used in public organizations in > EU. I believe, also "rest of the world" can profit from changes, > necessary to be implemented in EU. > > Therefore I would consider INSPIRE committee in OSGeo as important body, > which would coordinate efforts of OSGeo projects towards INSPIRE, so > that we could declare: OSGeo projects are INSPIRE ready or we are > working on it. > > Any opinions to this? I'm personally usually against forming "yet > another committee", but in this case, I do not see the topic to be > covered and it really is important issue here. > > Jachym > > [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/INSPIRE_conference_2013-paper > [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/INSPIRE Hi Jachym, great idea, thanks for your initiative. cu Stephan ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Would you be concerned if the "GeoServices REST API" became an OGC standard?
All, being involved in both communities I read this thread with high interest. I agree with the issues raised by Bruce, Jeroen, Daniel, etc. I guess my main issue is adding a competing set of standards within OGC without proper justification and thus weakening the overall position of OGC. cu Stephan On 05/06/2013 05:11 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: > I am also of the opinion that "single-vendor standards" such as KML and > this GeoServices REST API are turning OGC into a rubber-stamping > organization and this is not what the geospatial community needs. Don't > get me wrong, it is good to see these openly published, but the > publication should be by their owners (Google and ESRI in those case) > and not be rubber-stamped by OGC. > > What the geospatial community needs is an organization that provides > direction around a consistent set of standards that guarantee > interoperability between interchangeable software components. > > The suite of WxS services built over the last 10-15 years is somewhat on > the way of achieving this, even if some pieces still do not interoperate > as smoothly as we wish. Is OGC trying to tell the world that it no > longer believes in WxS? > > OGC and its members need to decide whether they want the OGC logo to be > perceived as the "guarantee of interoperability", or just as a > rubber-stamping organization with a large portfolio of inconsistent > standards. > > Whether your source is open or closed is out of the question here, so I > am not sure that a statement from OSGeo matters unless it is to point at > this obvious slippery slope in which OGC is falling (a movement which > started with KML a few years ago). > > Daniel > > > > On 13-05-06 3:41 AM, Jeroen Ticheler wrote: >> 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 >> 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/listinf
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Inspire-data] INSPIRE Conference: finalising the workshop proposal submission
Margherita, Jáchym, a bit late I've reviewed both of your proposals and added myself and proposed few minor updates but no problem if I'm too late. Anyway, both proposal look quite nice. Many thanks. cu Stephan On 03/15/2013 04:30 PM, Jáchym Čepický wrote: > I'm going to submit it little bit later today. Please add your name, who ever > is going to contribute. > > Thanks > > Jáchym > > Margherita Di Leo napsal(a): > >> Dear all, >> >> by *one* hour from now I am going to submit the workshop proposal: >> "Ping-Pong match: OSGeo & INSPIRE " [1], while I'd leave to Jachym the >> task >> to submit the paper proposal [2]. >> I would like to kindly ask you to make your changes ASAP. >> Also, I noticed that many persons have added their names in the section >> below [3], which was meant to gather participants to the hangout that >> took >> place yesterday. I won't take the responsibility to put their names >> within >> the "authors" of the workshop, even if they indicated they are willing >> to >> "contribute" to it. So, please, if you are willing contribute, you are >> very >> welcome to add yourselves in the proper section [4]. >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> [1] >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/INSPIRE_conference_2013#Workshop_proposal >> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/INSPIRE_conference_2013#Paper_proposal >> [3] >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/INSPIRE_conference_2013#The_hang_out_has_already_taken_place >> [4] >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/INSPIRE_conference_2013#Ping-Pong_match:_OSGeo_.26_INSPIRE > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
