|
Author |
Thread:
Issue: What are the stewardship implications of the GML decision? |
|
Paul Scarponcini
|
Issue: What are the stewardship implications of the GML decision?
Posted:
Saturday, January 29, 2005 5:01 PM (EST)
|
|
(I have separated out what are emerging as key issues regarding GML into separate threads to encourage focused discussion on these topics.)
Will TransXML be dependent on those responsible for GML and therefore not be in control of its own destiny? Concern has been raised about the cost of membership in OGC.
As with any software, a decision has to be made about how much content will be developed in-house and how much will be acquired from outside sources. The trade-off involves development and maintenance cost vs. purchase cost and of course control over content. We are usually willing to accept the lowest level components from others, like operating systems, data base management systems, language compilers (Java, VB, etc.). With TransXML we will accept XML Schema 1.0 from W3C though we have no representation on this committee. We will accept XML tools like XMLSpy to help us insure compliance to the XML standard.
A similar question arises when we consider whether to accept GML as our framework or to develop our own “in-house”. We have the same trade off decisions. Do we use project dollars to develop our own framework and develop a long term plan to maintain it – XML will evolve, XMLSpy will have newer versions and we have already seen by the GML Experiment that aecXML and IFC no longer validate as a result of this. Are there ways that we can maintain some level of control over the future of GML?
GML is a specification from the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). It has now been submitted to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for certification as an international software standard. This means that future versions will need to go through the ISO review process.
ISO decisions are made by representatives of National Bodies. For the US, this would be representatives from the ANSI INCITS L1 standards committee. Government agencies (U.S. Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and Agriculture, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, FGDC), industry and academia are represented on this committee. L1 makes proposed standards and changes available for public review and comment prior to deciding the US position.
|
|
|
|