- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:58:01 +0200
- To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz408yL1MfS0ywt=3O6gdSf7WK=54aVNVuvyoV-VupFoCQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Kerry, A colleague just showed me his work on publishing and consuming sensor data. He uses the OGC SensorThings API <http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/sensorthings> and is happy with its capabilities and simplicity. I am not sure how far SensorThings API is in the process of becoming an official OGC standard, but it is clear that there is lots of overlap with SSN. In the introduction of the SSN FPWD it says it can be regarded as a modern replacement for OGC's Sensor Web Enablement standards. But the same thing can be said about the SensorThings API. So questions that come to mind are: - Why is the OGC working on development of two standards for the same thing? - If both SSN and the SensorThings API are to become OGC standards, to what extent are they interoperable? - Is there some kind of collaboration between standards developers? Is it possible to devote some words about other standards that are presently in development in the introduction? Perhaps the W3C Generic Sensor API <https://w3c.github.io/sensors/> can also be mentioned? Regards, Frans 2016-05-23 8:48 GMT+02:00 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>: > Hi all, > > As planned, the editors of SSN would like to transition the current SSN > editors’ draft (http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ dated 23 May) to the status > of “First public working draft” in the w3c and “discussion paper” in OGC. > > Please do have a good look before the telecon this week, and do please > remember that there is nothing final about this – it is much more a > statement of intent and options littered with “issues” than a > specification. > > > > --Kerry > >
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 13:58:33 UTC