You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
OGC Architecture Board (OAB) feedback on the non Webby OGC standards list:
Make the wording of the criteria used to decide if something should be on this list positive instead of negative. Each of these standards was a good agreement at the time but now we need simplified agreements for a larger / different audience.
Make the first criterium more clear. Currently it is formulated as:
It needs modernization to fully support and follow the fundamental concepts of current web architectures. For example, it uses http only as a transport protocol. In contrast, standards which use http as an interface are considered 'Webby'.
Describe more explicitly how we think http should be used; something like 'according to current practice, resource oriented, using web linking, and including developer-oriented documentation like OpenApi 3.0's.
There was some protest against WMS being on this list. WMS is a well-deployed standard and is at least partly 'webby'. It uses URLs + parameters for requests, but the response is an XML document. Is that enough reason to say this standard is not webby?
When listing non-webby OGC standards in the roadmap, the heading name should not be "Features not covered by ongoing work" - suggestion: "Established standards in the geospatial domain"
Regarding the listing of IndoorGML: we should distinguish between the conceptual model, the GML encoding and the JSON encoding (now also available) and reconsider. The IndoorGML SWG would be interested in simple profiles.
The list is on the OAB agenda for the 27th of november '18. @lvdbrink and @6a6d74 to attend.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: