No subject

interoperability is one of the big advantages FOSS has over proprietary
software. eg,OGC compliance, so I can set up a WMS server & have Mapinfo, Arc,
OpenLayers, mapscript, etc, access from apps all over my organisation share
data is a very useful step forward. I note that proprietary GIS software is
incresaingly adopting greater interoperability, so I'm not sure how long FOSS
will continue to have any advantage or leadership in this arena.

So I'm not commenting on the technical merits of WMS, but on the fact that it
works & is now widely used, & makes my life much easier. 

I suggest that like DXF (that I don't use), & PDF & shp, developers & industry
have adopted standards that do work, & serve a useful purpose. The OGC
standards have achieved their wide implementation base because of this. As
such, they do exactly what they were designed to do. I think we'd be much worse
off without them (or an equivalent).

The SQL/MM standard was initially implemented in 1993. A potentially useful ISO
standard that no-one really uses (yet). OGC came up with SFS much later & the
developer communities jumped on board....

So the developer & user communities determine which standards actually get
implemented widely enough to become standards in fact as well as design.

I'm not aware of what the technical deficiencies are in the OGC standards (this
seems to be something carefully not expressed in your statement), but they have
been found good enough for the vast majority of developers in FOSS & commercial
projects to run with them. So the reason they have become industry standrds as
well as as set of specs, is because they work, widely & effectively (is it
not?)

I'm curious as to why you find theses standards so restrictive? Also why you
don't suggest an alternative which helps address your concerns. I'm not even
sure what your problem is. If you want to build something that doen't conform
to an existing standard, you are free to do so. The fact that others don't
choose this path is not necessarily bad, just because you have a different
opinion. You may well come up with something they all agree to adopt.

I agree that the OGC standards have been designed by a semi-closed shop, but
have been adopted & ratified by a very open one. Perhaps OSGEO as a FOSS
representative group could become an OGC member, with an interest in the
standards arena? 

Cheers,

   Brent Wood


> I imagine this post will make some people upset, but I think it raises
> some valid points. I don't think that everyone involved in open source
> GIS will agree with me, but I think I identify some problems with the
> love of standards that our of particular interest to our community.
> (In a way that isn't of interest to those that develop closed-source
> GIS programs.)
> 
> At any rate, the post is a long one, so if you do read it give
> yourself 5 or 10 minutes. Before you flame me remember that I'm just a
> surveyor that has seen too much sun, and that my opinion doesn't count
> for a whole lot in the big scheme of things. :]
> 
> You can read the post here:
> 
> http://openjump.blogspot.com/
> 
> The Sunburned Surveyor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freegis-list mailing list
> Freegis-list at intevation.de
> https://intevation.de/mailman/listinfo/freegis-list
>