|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: OGC and Standards, - a response |
| Date: |
01/07/2003 11:20:52 AM |
| From: |
Anthony Quartararo |
|
|
No hit and run comments here. You commented, so tag, your it.=20=20
Rob, it's not a democracy. OGC could have 10,000 members and have 10,000
different ideas for specifications, but which ones do you think are going to
be given priority, preference and finally, a viable life in the market? I'd
suggest that only a select few. If it were truly a level playing field, why
are there different levels of membership ? Secondly, by OGC's own admission,
they are not promoting open source software, merely interoperability
technology that meets their criteria.
And what about this "..a free, open source, compliant reference
implementation for its major web services specifications"=20=20
Huh? Not conformant, or did I miss that? Or am I getting my marketing lingo
all jumbled up. Only the major web services ? The minor ones aren't
important?=20=20
"actions speak louder than words. As far as the fact that collaborating to
create good specs takes a long time, name someone else in the geospatial
world who is doing it faster than the OGC".=20
So, this business logic then says, "do something, no matter what it is, just
DO something". As far as I know, OGC is the only game in town, unless you
count all the major vendors independently promoting their proprietary
technology while simultaneously promoting OGC specs, which, tends to get
fuzzy (hedge fund mentality) after awhile.
It's not too far off to say that OGC specs are (just one more ) solution
looking for a problem.=20=20
Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hranac [mailto:rob.hranac@openplans.org]=20
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:39 AM
To: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: Re: GISList: OGC and Standards, - a response
All,
Without wading into this discussion too deeply, it is probably worth noting
that our organization is an OGC member and we can hardly be described as a
large corporate vendor. More to the point of this discussion, we are
contracting to the OGC on an initiative (CITE) with the sole goal of making
a free, open source, compliant reference implementation for its major web
services specifications (WMS, WFS). Our two other collaborators on this
project are the Centre for Computational Geography at Leeds
(http://www.ccg.leeds.ac.uk/) and lat/lon (http://www.lat-lon.de/), both
members who also don't fit the massive corporate monolith image some here
are attempting to project on the OGC.
I think that in this case, actions speak louder than words. As far as the
fact that collaborating to create good specs takes a long time, name someone
else in the geospatial world who is doing it faster than the OGC. It has -
in my opinion - done an admirable job of adhering to its ideals while
simultaneously creating a viable model for implementing those ideals: the
CITE project is just one of many examples of this.
Rob Hranac
The Open Planning Project
377 Broadway, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10013
w: www.openplans.org
=20
To unsubscribe, write to gislist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
________________________________________________________________________
GeoCommunity GeoBids - less than $1 per day!
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
http://www.geobids.com
Setup a GeoCommunity Account and have access to=20
the GISDataDepot DRG & DOQQ Catalog http://www.geocomm.com/login.php
To unsubscribe, write to gislist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
________________________________________________________________________
GeoCommunity GeoBids - less than $1 per day!
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
http://www.geobids.com
Setup a GeoCommunity Account and have access to
the GISDataDepot DRG & DOQQ Catalog
http://www.geocomm.com/login.php
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
