[georss] KML into OGC

[Raj Singh]

You're right. I meant my message to convey that the content in a Best  
Practices document is no longer disparate ideas, but a logical  
packaging of ideas that is on the way to becoming a spec.

I'd add that the language about BPs being "mature enough for  
implementation" means go and try to implement this stuff so that you  
can comment on it based on your experiences. That's a different  
message than a final spec, which is go and implement in production  
software. But once again, in the case of KML these subtleties aren't  
very meaningful.
---
Raj


On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Allan Doyle wrote:

>
> On Mar 3, 2007, at 22:09, Raj Singh wrote:
>
>> Someone mentioned the speed of adopting KML. Let me add a point I
>> don't think has been made yet. Making KML an OGC Best Practices (BP)
>> paper does NOT make it an OGC standard. OGC technologies are usually
>> discussed by members only for awhile. The BP status is supposed to be
>> a way to encapsulate potentially disparate technology ideas into a
>> package that *could* become a specification so that people know
>> exactly what is being proposed and know that the intellectual
>> property issues are taken care of.
>
> I think the OGC definition of a BPP is stronger than that -
>
> <https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=12586> states:
> Best Practices Document: A document containing discussion of best
> practices related to
> either the use and/or implementation of an adopted OGC document or an
> OpenGIS
> candidate specification that has not be submitted using the RFC
> process but is considered
> mature enough for implementation and for release to the public. Best
> Practices
> Documents are an official position of the OGC and thus represent an
> official endorsement
> of the content of the paper.
>
> "related to either the use and/or implementation of an adopted OGC
> document or an OpenGIS
> candidate specification" would indicate a strong probability that the
> subject of the BPP will become an OGC spec.
>
> " official endorsement of the content of the paper" indicates more
> than "potentially disparate technology ideas"
>
> I think a BPP replaces the former Recommendation Paper.
>
> In the case of KML, to do what Raj suggests, I would have expected
> first a Discussion Paper.
>
> 	Allan
>
>> In this case everyone already knows the KML technology, so this step
>> is partially moot. So the best way to think about an OGC KML BP paper
>> is that it starts an official commenting process which will lead to
>> an OGC standard.
>
>> ---
>> Raj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> georss mailing list
>> georss at lists.eogeo.org
>> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>
> -- 
> Allan Doyle
> +1.781.433.2695
> adoyle at eogeo.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss