RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights

• To: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <creed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx>, <p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights
• From: "Ron Lake" <rlake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:03 -0700

Hi,

I would go further and say that the derivation of such a conceptual
architecture - taking a more top down perspective should be the real
work - or at least a very major component of the OGC work, rather than
working only bottom up.  I think we also need to a position in which we
make more use of "registration" to add new features to a specification,
rather than by the conventional specification as document process.  This
was and remains one of the objectives of GML, and to a minor extent this
achieved through the deployment of a CRS registry - the content of the
registry being (hopefully being blessed by the authority)  BEING A
standard.  I think this approach can be taken in other areas of our work
as well.

WRT a common information model, I think that is a core issue - but not
one easily solved as we have been debating the elements of such a model
for a number of years.


R

From: Carl Reed OGC Account [mailto:creed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: May 10, 2007 9:41 AM
To: Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx; p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Ron Lake
Cc: Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Roy.Mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx;
galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gpercivall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Singh, Raj
Subject: Re: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights

Simon -

Now you really got me thinking. The core-extension spec pattern dialogue
has bothered me in some sense in that there is a more fundamental issue
in the standards work of the OGC - there is no foundation model or
architecture that describes how the various OGC specs fit together in a
consistent and logical manner. This includes not having a consistent
information model.

I believe that you have put your finger on exactly the same issue except
that you have also gone one step farther and provided an initial
reference model for discussion.

I believe until we can agree on such a model (architecture?), we will
continue to be plagued with a variety of semantic issues,
inconsistencies in our specs, confusion in the market as to how they all
fit together, and so forth.

Let's definitely keep this discussion going!

Regards

Carl

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights
    • From: John Herring