Topic: Formal Guidance

Greater guidance to members on key issues is required.

Vision and guidance on which standards to use for which purpose should be given by the OGC. Government and other users of standards in their systems look to OGC for guidance on what to put in their call for proposals. OGC should give authoritative guidance on this. E.g. if you want a map being served you should use WMS. If the data is largely static, you are recommended to use WMTS for performance reasons.

Suggestions: - OGC should, using input from its members, define a clear vision on cross-domain standards. OGC staff should identify the need and requirements for general, cross-domain standards and actively help push them through the process. - Cross-domain standards should avoid overlap between themselves. OGC must provide clear positioning among general standards. New standards must position themselves wrt. other general standards. - Standards life-cycles should be better defined. E.g. OGC recommends to retire use of WCS 1.0 by 2016. Obviously this should be with members consent.

OGC standards are successful because they provide interoperability, for which there is a great need in the geospatial world. OGC standards could be even more successful if they were perceived as less complex and easier to implement in an efficient way. By focusing on key general standards, I think the OGC can take steps towards that goal as well. Then standards would not only be chosen because of interoperability, but also because it is just the best way provide such geo-functionality. Simpler, overlapping standards that hinder interoperability are in my view not the way forward though.

How can we make it easier to position documentation (standards) for implementers/developers?

OGC standards all need some level of primer that provides use cases and examples of how each standard is used and which interoperability problems each standard is most suited for solving.

The OGC needs to decide whether describing standards in concise and plain language is a priority.

Relations to other topics

Related to Topic

Discussion

Such things as clear documentation, 1 page overviews, etc will increase uptake. Will increased standards uptake from clear documentation justify investment?

Similar business analysis should be applied to question of potentially overlapping standards, or whether to invest in testing frameworks and quality control.

Leadership and recommendations from OGC to members would be of benefit here, and it would be appropriate to draw upon research from specific OGC members.

-- CameronShorter - 02 Jul 2013

On behalf of Paula McLeod:

Would be useful for OGC to be able to adjust more quickly to new technical direction and show more leadership. The OGC has become quite big and diverse (number of DWG, SWG, initiatives and liaisons) that the leadership and staff have had to support and focus on operations as opposed to focussing strategically. The breadth of activity results in the consequence of the organization being stretched too thin to provide technical coordination or reduce duplication.

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 2013
 
Topic revision: r4 - 20 Aug 2013, TrevorTaylor
 

This site is powered by FoswikiThe information you supply is used for OGC purposes only. We will never pass your contact details to any third party without your prior consent.
If you enter content here you are agreeing to the OGC privacy policy.

Copyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding OGC Public Wiki? Send feedback