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 09:52:51 -0700

HI,

I think if we see the request for a feature which has a coverage-valued
property as a need for service composition with one fronting the other -
but without a clear semantic difference in their roles - then we are
saying really that the WCS is a specialization of WFS (I would argue
this is true also for SOS - I know Simon sees it the other way around) -
the proposed service chaining is then more a migration strategy than
things as they should be.

Ron

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: Simon Cox