Innovation Harmonization and Standards Life-cycle management

  • How does OGC allow for innovation to happen to support technology and market shifts while maintaining existing standards? We have a mature standards baseline that has been braodly implemented, is mandated in numerous policy statements, and (flaws and all) provides a much higher level of interoperability than prior to the work of the OGC. However, there are numerous market forces (business, technical, human, and cultural) that are driving requirements for lighter, more agile standards that may conflict with the existing OGC baseline. The OGC members have always been highly innocative and creative. How does the OGC accommodate the installed base using the current OGC/ISO baseline with the requirements of the mobile internet, Internet of Things, AR, and so forth? There are related questions and issues related to the OGC having standards that have some level of overlapping capability:
    • If there is overlapping functionality on one or more OGC standards, we need to consider the cost to application developers, systems integrators, testers and sponsors to support all relevant OGC standards will be substantially increased.
  • Is there member consensus that harmonization and innovation are accepted principles / goals of the consortium? And the related question:
  • How will OGC address externally submitted spatial / location standards that are widely (globally) used and overlap or conflict with the existing OGC baseline?
    • Who maintains the externally developed specifications that then become OGC standards?
    • What are the IPR implications?
  • How might the OGC development process be modified to encourage documentation as the last phase of the process, with heavy emphasis on experimentation, testing, validation up front? Think about an agile process - learn from the OGC testbed process.

Cameron Shorter: Answers to this question should be translated into business problems in order to answer.

What do OGC sponsors wish to achieve from standards? Do sponsors wish to encourage mass market uptake? Will mass market uptake attract more OGC sponsors and funding to sustain OGC activities? What will attract mass market uptake? Such things as clear documentation, 1 page overviews, etc will increase uptake. Will increased standards uptake from clear documentation justify investment?



-- CameronShorter - 02 Jul 2013

On Behalf of PaulaMcLeod

There is a need for a simplistic demonstration of the contribution of specs. Sometimes OGC and their members take that for granted but people are questioning the contribution of some specific specs. Only few specs are widely used apparently, and some others are almost not used. For those that are not used why maintaining them. For what purpose they were developed. Before initiating a new spec, it should be clear for hole it addresses and the importance to develop it. Statistics about the use/implementation of current OGC specs would give an idea about the usefulness and success of the various OGC specs.

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 2013

On behalf of Paula McLeod:

Strengthen liaison with ISO to ensure harmonization.

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 2013

On behalf of Paula McLeod:

With respect to implementation issues, and how WMS communicates with data catalogue services, there are poor linkages between data catalogue service vs. how services catalogue data. Need to catalogue things 2 times in different parallel paths leading to duplication. Needs Harmonisation.

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 2013
Edit | Attach | Print version | History: r8 | r7 < r6 < r5 < r4 | Backlinks | View wiki text | Edit WikiText | More topic actions...
Topic revision: r6 - 15 Aug 2013, TrevorTaylor


Ideas, requests, problems regarding OGC Public Wiki? Send feedback