|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: RE: OGC and Standards, - a response |
| Date: |
12/11/2002 05:37:16 PM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
Dr. Reed,
Ya got me. I'm flattered to be taken to task by someone with your
credentials.
"..You are quite correct that some of our members are the traditional
GIS vendors. However, probably 80% are not!.."
I'd wager lunch that the 80/20 rule applies here.
"...Please let me know of any other players whom you think should have a
role in the OGC process."
The list is impressive, yes. I'd suggest that some are rather
obligatory given the nature of their core mission, and the public
perception of not participating would seem odd, and no doubt there was
significant politics involved.
"...They achieve significant benefit in terms of their growth in the
market place, networking with other OGC members, return on investment,
and/or achievement of business objectives. To put it bluntly, open
specifications make their jobs easier and increase return on
investment..."
Are there published non-anecdotal case studies of these claims ? I'd
like to see them.
"While OGC began with an ideological vision, it's tied into a business
model for members and the organization. "
Exactly what is that unifying business model ?
"More importantly, this process results in a diversity of plug and play
technology offerings in the marketplace - take minute to review the
Implementing Products listing on the www.opengis.org website. "
I have, it's bewildering to me. It's like shopping in the detergent
isle at the grocery store. Do I want to buy the "ALL new and improved
TIDE", "the Colors only TIDE", "the fragrance fee TIDE", etc. Variety
for variety's sake is not valuable.
"One aspect that our members find particularly valuable: our commitment
to protecting both their corporate Intellectual Property Rights and the
specifications developed by the membership. "
I bet they do. Doesn't this beg the question of "OpenGIS" ?
"As the number of the products that implement OpenGIS specifications
grows, more and more procurements are requiring adherence to standards
and specifications that support and promote interoperability of
geospatial data, services, and applications."
Again, my ISO 9000 example proves that this does not automatically
equate to better consumer experience, be it an engineering "user" doing
fiber design, or a business consumer trying to navigate to a hotel at
night in a strange city on a wireless device. As many consumers of
products that are produced by ISO 9000 registered companies will attest
to, the claims of superior product/service usually do not pan out. Same
would be true for OGC conformance. By their very nature, specifications
are description and subjective, not prescriptive. There is a
significant difference.
"That, our members will tell you, increases the number and value of
prospects for new business opportunity and revenue generation."
This is self serving. Who is going to spend tons o cash and then
badmouth the very program they spent money on?
"There is another set of relationships that both validates and increases
the value of our work. The OGC has bilateral agreements with other
standards and specification organizations, such as ISO (the
International Standards Organization). The upshot: the content of
various OGC specifications are becoming either international standards
or are included as part of other specifications, such as the Mobile
Location Platform API."
I don't find this particularly comforting, given my position on ISO.
"Second, let's have a look at those "hefty fees for the 'privilege' to
participate in an 'Open' GIS Consortium." Perhaps it's news to you, but
there are many other standards and specifications organizations
(including the W3C that sets standards for the Web) that charge
membership fees. Have you looked into their fees? OMA, OMG, OASIS, W3C
and many others charge higher membership fees. Running a standards
organization does not come cheap, but the returns can be considerable -
look at the Web as an example!"
Let's. The WWW as we know it, and continue to piece together was NEVER
intended to be what people have forced it to be today. Not e-commerce,
not e-biz, not VOIP, etc. The IP standard and the DNS standard were
conceived in an altogether different setting, and it has been
"bastardized" into what it is today, frighteningly fragile, yet heaped
upon every day with something new. A story about building on sand comes
to mind here. Secondly, the WWW has been successful despite this, why ?
Because of people and organizations taking the initiative, however
faulty, and implementing things before our collective imagination in
real internet time. Why is it that in North America, we are years
behind Asia and Middle East when it comes to wireless technology ? Not
lack of spectrum, even though that is an
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
