[Geojson] GeoJSON as OGC standard?

[Chris Holmes]

I've already been talking to Carl, OGC is for sure interested in bringing it
in, and Carl was the one who told me about the existence of the fast track
process.  Of course it is a consensus process of the members, so some may
put up resistance, but I believe there are good arguments to keep it just as
it is.

Chris

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Carl Smyth <steve at mobilegis.com> wrote:

> As a developer using and occasionally defending GeoJSON I don’t see how
> fast-tracking it through the OGC process without changes can hurt. It might
> well prevent some of the app-breaking forks and changes/extensions proposed
> from time to time. I guess the one danger/opportunity that might be a
> consideration is that the OGC Simple Features SWG deals with the same
> concepts. There might be some resistance to approving a standard  offering
> incomplete compatibility with OGC’s simple features (which are growing less
> simple). This would be a question for the OGC Architectural Board and Carl
> Reed creed at opengeospatial.org could give a read on this if he hasn’t
> already.****
>
> ** **
>
> …steve****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org [mailto:
> geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Holmes
> *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2011 9:17 AM
> *To:* geojson at lists.geojson.org
> *Subject:* [Geojson] GeoJSON as OGC standard?****
>
> ** **
>
> I've been talking to OGC folks recently, and was wondering if this group
> would have interest in getting GeoJSON becoming an official OGC standard.
>  They are becoming more interested in lighter weight standards, and said
> that GeoJSON could likely move on a 'fast track' process.  One other thing
> that I didn't know is that candidate specs developed outside the OGC can be
> brought in and approved as an OGC standard while at the same time the spec
> development can remain external to the OGC.  So the spec can continue to
> evolve on this list (though I feel it's been quite stable for awhile, so may
> not need to), with this community having control of it.  After it's updated
> then can be submitted to OGC.****
>
> ** **
>
> I'd personally like to see this happen.  I know some in this group aren't
> that excited about OGC specs, but they do have really great international
> visibility, and we'd likely see even more adoption of GeoJSON as some
> implementors want to be able to point at an official approved international
> standard.  I'd be happy to shepherd it through the process, and I definitely
> will be against any type of forking or changes to it (I was quite unhappy
> with how OGC took TMS type ideas and came out with the much more confusing
> WMTS).  But definitely don't want to put the time in if people in this
> community are against it, as I think the process of GeoJSON development has
> been great, and wouldn't want to change it.  I'd just ideally like the best
> of both worlds - specs developed openly, but the best adopted and promoted
> by OGC.****
>
> ** **
>
> best regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Chris****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geojson mailing list
> Geojson at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20110725/ea5fd995/attachment-0004.htm>