|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: RE: OGC and Standards, - a response |
| Date: |
12/11/2002 06:08:27 PM |
| From: |
<creediii .. mindspring.com> |
|
|
Anthony -
A couple of quick counters:
> "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" ?
You miss the point. In order to remain "open", we do have to protect our
members' IPR while at the same time insuring that there are not patent or IPR
issues tied to any one of our specifications. By doing this, we can assure the
public consumer that they do not have to worry about subsequent patent
infringement violations, royalty issues, and so forth. The whole realm of IPR
is one that many organizations are working on to insure that the Web, the
Internet, and on an on remain free an open environments for all.
> So what is the compelling reason to become an
> OGC member ? How many open
> source (GIS) software providers are there ?
Very simple - do you want a voice in the future of our industry or not? You
can sit back and complain or you can join a make a difference. Do you want our
industry to grow or do you want it to continue down a path where it never
achieves its full potential?
> However, the W3C and IETF are working on
> problems that are magnitudes of
> difference in complexity from OGC, and in fact,
> their results will
> affect OGC downstream, right ?
We rely on an technology infrastructure framework (http, XML, XSLT, ebRIM,
etc) that is provided by other organizations. But are the problems they are
trying to solve orders of magnitude more complex? I am not so sure about that.
I like to quote something attributed to Albert Einstein: "As a young man, my
fondest dream was to become a Geographer. However, while working in the Patent
Office, I thought deeply about the matter and concluded that it was far too
difficult a subject. With some reluctance, I then turned to Physics as a
substitute." Trying to solve semantic interoperability issues in the
geospatial domain is very complex.
Carl
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:36:34 -0500 Anthony Quartararo
<ajq3@spatialnetworks.com> wrote:
> 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
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
