[Geowanking] WFS misgivings etc

[Sonny Parafina]

So does this mean there is interest in a Participant Session?  Or can we
combine it with another session to get the maximum interchange?

sonny


  -----Original Message-----
  From: geowanking-bounces at lists.burri.to
[mailto:geowanking-bounces at lists.burri.to]On Behalf Of Mike Liebhold
  Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 3:26 PM
  To: geowanking at lists.burri.to
  Subject: Re: [Geowanking] WFS misgivings etc


  jo walsh wrote:

But to me OGC don't seem terribly keen for
non-industry-or-defense-funded-academia people to actually use their
specifications.
  Hi Jo & colleagues-

  Jo is making some righteous points. But to be fair, even to many
experienced techies, OpenGIS specs are no more incomprehensible than the
semantic web. How many  ordinary people (not idiots.) do you know that
understand how namespaces, schemas and ontologies can be used to make better
maps. Before ordinary people can benefit much from a combination of
geospatial data and locative hypermedia, both  OpenGIS  and Semantic Web
types have much to learn from each other to explain to mere mortals how
alien systems of spatial knowledge will make their lives more interesting.


I hope Sonny Parafina's talk at ETCON on on OpenGIS specs, WFS,  Web Map
Server / Web Feature Server/ Web Coverage Server (imagery)/ Web Terrain
Server / Catalog, etc. will kick off a rich exchange of views.

Cheers-

Mike Liebhold


  jo walsh wrote:

But to me OGC don't seem terribly keen for
non-industry-or-defense-funded-academia people to actually use their
specifications.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://geowanking.org/pipermail/geowanking_geowanking.org/attachments/20040121/319ef916/attachment-0003.html>