Re: [sdw] Create a list of OGC standards that are "not yet Web-friendly enough" plus rationale for each

I just had a look. Some thoughts:

> Observations and Measurements GML encoding
> Rationale: Superseded by SSN.

I do not think this is accurate. SSN is targeted for the Semantic Web community and does not supersede O&M GML, which targets developers that prefer XML. 

I also do not see how O&M GML can be classified as non-webby as it is consistent with the architecture of the Web (in fact, one could argue more than many JSON encodings as it supports links!). 

O&M GML may be complex and verbose, but the same is true for SSN, isn't it? I have the feeling that the current approach mixes at least two aspects: whether or not a standard is consistent with the web architecture and whether or not a standard is considered too complex for most non-GI-experts. Maybe this should be separated? WMS is not webby, but has been used by many non-experts. O&M GML is webby, but probably too complex for most non-experts.

Then there is the 3rd aspect that the trend is in favour of JSON compared to XML. I think the point there could be made that XML-based standard may be webby, but do not meet the expectation of many Web developers. This should not imply that the existing standards should be changed, but it could be pointed out to consider new standards / variants that support JSON and not XML (both for data and other API payloads).

By the way, O&M is scheduled for a revision which should make it consistent with the SDW WG work on SOSA/SSN. In addition there is ongoing work in OGC on a simpler GML and JSON encoding for O&M:

> IndoorGML / CityGML
> Rationale: GML encoding is not web friendly.

See above. 

In addition, is the point that the application schemas are too rich too be handled by non-expert Web developers?

GitHub Notification of comment by cportele
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2018 11:31:51 UTC