Topic: Integrate OGC Programs

Consider improvements to address disconnects or tensions between the OGC Interoperability Program and the OGC Standards Program.

It has been suggested, for instance, that it might be possible to make progress on the REST discussions by actively lobbying donnors of funds or in kind for the Interoperability Program to develop multiple, different approaches to REST to explore what is possible and what solutions work.

Relations to other topics

Related to TopicSpecInnovation, since the integration of the Interoperability Program may be a way to foster innovation in the OGC Standards Program.


#TopicDiscussion

Discussion

The OGC has a structure built around 4 programs: Standards Development, Interoperability, Marketing and Compliance. For the most part this structure has served the community well with Standards Development focussing on technology standards and the Interoperability Program looking at implementation of these standards within particualr domains.

However, there have been occasions where disconnects between the programs has caused tension and hampered progress. As the OGC Standards Development effort moves further into the domains (ie. Water, Energy, etc), it is likely that greater coordination between the standards focussed activities and the Interoperability Program will be necessary. At present the OGC structure relies on relationships between individuals to manage these overlaps. Perhaps something more formal might be needed.

-- DavidLemon - 02 Jul 2013

Candidate recommendations 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that when a new interoperability program such as a testbed is initiated the relevant DWGs, SWGs, and external standards bodies are brought into the loop from the initial planning phase on.

Part of this topic focuses on the use of the Interoperability program to tackle some of the work of the Standards program which is not currently being done. The Interoperability testbeds are the only focused work efforts undertaken by the OGC itself. They also included funding for some of the work. For work in the Standardization program which is falling through the cracks such as OWS Common harmonization or REST research, perhaps the OGC should leverage the Interoperability Testbeds to make progress.

-- AdrianCuster - 12 Aug 2013

This overlaps with the "agile standards" development process that has been advocated by Jeff DLB. This suggestion is being handled by the Topic Quality vs Quantity Leadership team.

On behalf of Paula McLeod

Paula reiterated the point she made yesterday morning on the Leadership telecon, that not only are there SWGs and DWGs that need to be taken into account when starting an IP program. but also external relationships with other standards bodies such as buildingSmart that may also need to be involved. This generalizes the topic to include identifying external relationships and DWGs relevant to an IP program.

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 201

Candidate recommendations 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that when a new interoperability program such as a testbed is initiated not only the relevant DWGs and SWGs are brought into the loop, but also external standards bodies such as builingSMART.

On behalf of Paula McLeod:

There is a feeling that members get better consideration from OGC because they put more cash money (e.g. an important company may have a higher membership and people feels that for that reason it receives more consideration from OGC).

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 2013

Response (Mark Reichardt)

OGC’s governance structure as defined through its policies and procedures provides all members with a voice and influence in the standards process. All OGC members have access, technical influence and voting rights in OGC technical committee working groups. All members have access to participate, sponsor or monitor OGC’s Interoperability Program testbeds, pilots and experiments. Higher levels of membership include additional committee voting rights, as well as additional focus on maintenance of OGC policies and procedures, market and technology forecasting, and other policy matters of the Consortium.

As a not-for-profit voluntary consensus standards organization, OGC has different levels of membership available to organizations and individuals to engage in the OGC programs. The annual fees received from private and public sector organizations, and individuals provides resources needed to sustain the OGC consensus process, and to assure that OGC standards remain freely available for worldwide use. As OGC membership is comprised of industry, government, academic, research and NGO organizations, the process benefits from a varied set of community perspectives.

We note that OGC’s Associate members – the Consortium’s entry level of membership -- have significant influence over the OGC standards baseline. This is a result of OGC’s consensus process assuring that every OGC member has influence and a voice in the OGC process. Furthermore, higher levels of OGC membership are comprised of organizations representing industry, government, academia and research organizations. This diversity of public and private sector representation is reflected at all OGC membership levels, and is key to identifying standards requirements and achieving a balance of interest across OGC mission activities.


 
Topic revision: r7 - 29 Oct 2013, GregBuehler
 

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