Hello,
I've made a brief summary of this thread and sent it to the Spanish
Local Chapter mailing list linking specially the mail from Cameron[1]
that started the conversation.
I've tried to encourage them to participate in the debate, right now
we are receiving some responses, in spanish in the s
Hey Ann, all,
On 5/6/13 5:48 PM, Anne Ghisla wrote:
Stephan, Adrian: is there an effective way for OSGeo to address a
statement to OGC, beside the official requests for comments and our
Discuss list?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Anne
Any official statement issued by the OSGeo Board or community
Hi all,
I agree with Andrea. In my opinion OGC should be building upon the WxS
specifications, introducing REST and JSON with a round of new major
versions.
It was already tough for us to explain WxS services to end users for the
last 10 years. Adding new service specifications will not help u
On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:24:05 +0200
Stephan Meißl wrote:
> 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
I wanted to send out a brief thank you to everyone that wrote and submitted
an annual report item for last year. There is double or triple the number
of report items this year when compared to last year.
Needless to say, I'm running behind with all of the extra content that
needs to be reviewed an
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
Step
All,
I've followed this thread with interest, thanks for the insightful
discussion.
If I can spare my 2 cents, is that the OGC specifications are complex
enough already, with differences in behavior in the various versions, that
adding another set of competing standards is just going to increase
c
The part that bothers me the most about this has to do with the big
picture. I'm concerned that if we focus on this or that standard without
putting it into the larger context that poor(bad?) decisions are getting
made that set precedents for more bad decisions to follow.
This had been touched
All,
I'm pretty much in the same camp as Jeroen has described below.
The original advertised capabilities from OGC were to develop a set of common
and documented standards that could be used as interoperable building blocks.
It was supposed to be a nice and easy way to say that I, (or we) as
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
Adrian sums up the problems and the discussions that were happening
really well. I fully agree with the problems that arise.
I just want to add that from my perspective this isn't an anti-ESRI
campaign from some OSGeo fellows, but it's against one company pushing
something through the OGC that def
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 (t
12 matches
Mail list logo
