W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > November 2018

RE: [sdw] Discuss list of non webby OGC standards with OGC Architecture Board (#1079)

From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:36:02 +0000
To: "'public-sdwig@w3.org'" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0502MB305218EBA50EB2162EE6A6FFFCD10@HE1PR0502MB3052.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
As you can see we (Jeremy and I) discussed the SDW roadmap [1] and the 'non Webby OGC standards' list [2] with the OGC Architecture Board yesterday. 

We agreed to: 
1) refine the non webby OGC standards list criteria according to the comments received (see below),
2) apply the criteria to the (relevant*) OGC standards and score them (maybe this 'score' is something we could express somehow in the roadmap tables),
3) update the roadmap accordingly.

We have an open invitation as SDW IG to come to OAB when we are ready for further discussion. We think it is best to do this a few times, not just at the end of step 3. 

We would like to work on step 1 during SDWIG focus week, next week. The goal is to get a set of criteria against which we can 'score' existing OGC standards. Please respond to the related Github issue [3].

[1]: https://w3c.github.io/web-roadmaps/sdw

[2]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/roadmap/non-webby-ogc-standards.md

[3]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1079 
* Consider that not all OGC standards *need*  to be webby, and some are used heavily within a particular industry and making them webby could have all kinds of impact.

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Linda van den Brink via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org> 
Verzonden: woensdag 28 november 2018 11:01
Aan: public-sdwig@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: [sdw] Discuss list of non webby OGC standards with OGC Architecture Board (#1079)

OGC Architecture Board (OAB) feedback on the non Webby OGC standards list: 
1) Make the wording of the criteria used to decide if something should be on this list positive instead of negative. Each of these standards was a good agreement at the time but now we need simplified agreements for a larger / different audience. 

2) Make the first criterium more clear. Currently it is formulated as: 

> It needs modernization to fully support and follow the fundamental concepts of current web architectures. For example, it uses http only as a transport protocol. In contrast, standards which use http as an interface are considered 'Webby'.

OAB discussion suggests: 
- Include link to [webarch](https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/)
- Describe more explicitly how we think http should be used; something like 'according to current practice, resource oriented, using web linking, and including developer-oriented documentation like OpenApi 3.0's.

3) There was some protest against WMS being on this list. WMS is a well-deployed standard and is at least partly 'webby'. It uses URLs + parameters for requests, but the response is an XML document. Is that enough reason to say this standard is not webby?

4) When listing non-webby OGC standards in the roadmap, the heading name should not be "Features not covered by ongoing work" - suggestion: "Established standards in the geospatial domain" 

GitHub Notification of comment by lvdbrink Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1079#issuecomment-442389280 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2018 10:36:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:00 UTC