Search |
||
FOSS4G Notes - Day OnePosted by jive on September 11, 2006 at 2:57 PM PDT
Oh Catalog where art thou?Mostly I hung out at the OSGEO booth, adjusting to jet lag, and trying to assist catalog and metadata refugees wandering from booth to booth in search of solace. Perhaps with the introduction of GeoNetwork to the OSGEO incubation process.we will be able to handle these issues a bit better in the future.The interesting incite is that the OSG catalog specification is viewed as being complicated, in actual fact is no worse then the WFS specification (and shares much in common with WFS 1.1 including a Transaction operation). Let me sum up:
Both of these camps are taking so long they are starting not to matter, my hope is a "BOF" on simple catalog stuff this Thursday will be nice and focused and offer a third pragmatic approach. I am going to go and represent "client concerns" - ie give me enough information that I can make the user experience better. My fear is that we will get stuck in some SOAP/WSDL/OWS/REST protocol debate, frankly it does not matter - if useful data is in there us client programmers will use the protocol to go after it. GeoTools 10 years onThis FOSS4G is going to be the first large gathering of all the active GeoTools developers, really looking forward to trying to answer the many questions Adrian Custer has stored up. Hopefully we can get a user guide that makes some sense. It is fascinating to start meeting people.It was interesting that nobody wanted to relax and talk about where we come from, instead everyone was excited about the future and what needed attention this week!
Deegree WorkshopIn the afternoon I attend the Deegree workshop, and was surprised a couple of times. My big surprise was that their iGeoPortal is completely defined within the confines of the a WMSContext file. I liked their open - lets say "engagement" rather then "abuse" of this interoptability format to gather plugins together to define a web page.Fun stuff. Looking forward to their WFS 1.1 support. BOF WMS GridAlways fun about the difference between everyone knowing what needs to be done, and then actually agreeing to it. At the end of the day it looks like a seperate capabilities document that provides additional information for clients so they can make requests in a specic manner so they can get cached. I am going to look hard at this one as it forms, it was great to see the enthusiasm for getting this solved, as well as the emphais on backwards compatibility.»
Comments
Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first)
|
||
|
|