On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Adrian Custer <acus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The dominance of ESRI is controversial both because the working mode lacked any collaborative spirit and, perhaps > most critically, because this is seen as a way through which ESRI can bring its own service onto an equal footing > with the current, public OGC standards in the government procurement game. Governments are shifting towards > requiring that all spatial software conform with published, open standards; the proposed standard, if adopted, would > allow ESRI to push its own software as also an "Open Standard" and compete on an unequal footing with > implementations of the software being worked on by everyone else. ----- To elaborate on the "unequal footing" phrase above: One additional aspect of the government side of this equation is that for several years there has been a trend (similar to Microsoft products) in getting the ESRI architecture adopted as a GIS software standard within government IT enterprise contexts. This then requires agencies to transition to use of the ESRI platform exclusively for geospatial work. Projecting into the future, if there were 2 competing OGC service types and ESRI were to drop support for the older W*S family of OGC services (or merely push support for them out of the core packages and into an expensive interoperability add-on), this would place many agencies in a situation of only being able to serve the newer standards, effectively killing the older standards within those contexts...
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
