Rob,
My point(s) about OGC is that is it a solution to problem that does not
really exist. Secondly, whatever problems did exist when OGC was conceived,
have been solved by a variety of entrepreneurial types that offer great
products in their own respective niche. If there are persistent "problems"
that are purported, tell me, what are they, and how are they really
"problems"? What can't today's (or tomorrow's ) products do in the absence
of OGC ?=20
Also, I would contend that you do not have to be a Government entity to be
democratic. I'm not suggesting OGC should be a democracy, it would then
basically come to a complete standstill. My point with this comment was
that their process is not democratic, hence, $$ talks, and those that spend
more $$ get more say in the final cut. This is not only counterintuitive to
the mission of OGC, but it also further demonstrates a point I made in an
earlier email that the entire process only serves to promote and market the
main contenders anyway, so why pretend that it doesn't.=20=20
I think if OGC wanted to promote itself as truly altruistic and "academic"
in nature, then yes, a single flat fee for all members is warranted. This
would remove any leverage, and I bet you dollars to donuts, there would be
an exodus of the top players and a flood of smaller players. The big
players would no longer have a compelling reason to participate if they did
not have any more leverage than say perhaps me and my puny company. It's a
lot like "soft money", selling weekenders at the White House, and
Enronomics.
ISO TC211 et al? are you kidding me ? Talk about a non-starter! DOA. Look,
you can go down the long list of US, Indian and other GIS services vendors
that have bought the farm and spent money on ISO 9002 certification. Have
customer's and consumers benefited. Not hardly. It's a marketing toy to
convince the uneducated and uninterested that they should choose company X
over company Y. Are prices inflated because of this standard, absolutely.
Is quality perfect, never. Is quality of products delivered any better by
any measurable standard because of someone implementing ISO9002, absolutely
not. Why? Because the entire ISO series of standards, including TC176 work
and TC 211 as well, are compelled to develop standards that are all
encompassing, descriptive rather than prescriptive, and further, these
standards are paper tigers without an audit regime that knows anything about
digital product quality, GIS, geography or anything remotely associated with
it.
Lastly, your misstatement about compliant=3Dconformance proves an earlier
point I made with Dr. Carl Reed. You, as a small fish, participating, get
confused as to what it all means and how to state, in clear terms, what "it"
is. How do you expect the uninitiated and typically complacent general
consumer to really understand the difference (there is a difference,
remember...), or is it that no one really cares what the general
consumer/user really thinks, needs or wants, just marching ahead, full steam
into OGC-land.=20=20
I'll say it again, it's a solution looking for a problem. A very expensive
solution, looking for a $.05 problem.
Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hranac [mailto:rob.hranac@openplans.org]=20
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:34 PM
To: gislist@geocomm.com
Subject: RE: GISList: OGC and Standards, - a response
Anthony,
> No hit and run comments here. You commented, so tag, your it.
> Rob, it's not a democracy. OGC could have 10,000 members and=20
> have 10,000 different ideas for specifications, but which ones do you=20
> think are going to be given priority, preference
OK, not trying to duck any replying responsibilities (at least not before I
go on vacation)! What is your problem with the OGC, exactly? That it is not
a democracy? The OGC is not a democracy because it is not a government. It
is an organization that has to define ways to keep itself afloat and it does
so by charging for membership. Of course it true that some organizations
can spend a lot more than others and (in a previous email) you seemed to
think was a good thing to charge some lower rates to smaller members. As
someone who has actually participated in the process as a small fish, I
would suggest that the OGC currently balances its need to have revenue with
overall process fairness quite well. I mean, do you have another
organizational model to suggest, here?
> As far as I know, OGC is the only game in town
> It's not too far off to say that OGC specs are (just one more)
solution
> looking for a problem.
As far as the OGC being a solution looking for a problem, if you feel this
way then feel free not to participate. Clearly, the 200+ vendors,
governments, universities, and non-profits who do spend money on memberships
feel t
|
