[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: OGC UoM Best Practices guidance
Gary - I believe that we are in violent agreement! Just stating things a bit differently :-) This is why I suggested that the correct approach - as you are suggesting - is both bottom up and top down. Also, thanks for support of OGC standards. Perhaps - to help make life a bit easier for those implementing OGC standards, we have just released (not even announced yet) a new community resource called OGCNetwork. Anyone can register and participate. The Network vision is to help solve the issues you have so correctly identified. www.ogcnetwork.net . Check it out. It is fledgling but collaboration is already beginning. Cheers Carl > Carl, > > I am not arguing against you or the need for better standards. We, in > the DM program are using OGC standards for Web Map services. We are > also committed to building to the standards of both the EM-TC and NIEM. > And we are not just "compliant." I.e., using three tags, and claiming > compliance. We are trying to build real interoperability. But real > interoperability takes more than a mandate. It takes real acceptance of > that mandate. And no matter who is running the show, developer > acceptance will be required for real acceptance. It is all a matter of > morale. Just like in the military, where Generals run the show, but > troop morale and the fit of the equipment to the capability and training > of the troops is a major factor in success. > > Top down mandates can work, but only if they are CLEARLY EXPLAINED and > marketed effectively. And then, they must actually work as advertised > and not be so complicated that long-term costs are actually increased. > Commercial firms use internal standards because they keep costs down. > They use external standards if they can make more money by doing so. If > the government mandates a standard, one of two conditions are required > before the firm will start implementation: > > 1. They can bill cost plus. Even if it does not work, they make money. > This is the normal practice of the Federal integrators. For them, > failure is no big problem, since real success in Federal systems usually > about a 50-50 situation anyway (and often that success has less do with > the technology than politics, so technology risk is often ignored). As a > result, there has been a lot of money frittered away (I am thinking > personally of a couple of programs for the Army Reserve, but there are > lots of others. Think of all of the systems that "built" using the DoD > data model.) > > 2. They think they can sell more of their packaged software because > standards compliance can expand their marketplace. In this case a > mandate can motivate a vendor into doing standards to maintain or > increase market share or enter new markets, so long as complications > from the standard do not increase costs or competition to the point that > profits are reduced in spite of the mandate. > > So, my mission is to keep the costs of interoperability down in order to > widen the playing field and encourage more and more vendor > participation. For that reason, anything that appears complicated > scares me a bit. That said, the world is complicated, and many of our > systems are complicated. So, many of our system-to-system communication > has to be complicated. But, the more complicated it is, or even appears > to be, the slower true interoperability will happen. If we do not keep > that fact in mind as we go about our work, we will be far less > successful than we could otherwise be. I know I sound like a broken > record on this issue. But, since my talents are closer to yours than the > people you actually need to convince, I sincerely think that my "simple > solution first" approach has merit. I am not against complication, I am > just against starting with it. > > That said, I have no quarrel GML. I am going to take a couple of the > GML examples you sent me in the document and work them into content > object in the DE as illustrations of how it can be done. (I already have > a GML point example, but need to do some documentation.) > > > Gary A. Ham > Senior Research Scientist > Battelle Memorial Institute > 540-288-5611 (office) > 703-869-6241 (cell) > "You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care who > gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman > > -----Original Message----- > From: creed@opengeospatial.org [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org] > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 10:03 AM > To: Ham, Gary A > Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: OGC UoM Best Practices guidance > > Gary - > > Perhaps a bit off topic, but I hear the developers pain. That said, who > is running the show - the developers or the managers/policy makers? > Perhaps the issue you are pointing to is more one of culture than not > wanting to take the time to learn something new and correct. I managed a > development staff (young, old, geeks, gurus, strange personalities) for > many years. I gave them considerable freedom to be creative and be > productive. BUT, and I mean BUT, their performance reviews included how > well they adhered to very specific documentation and coding best > practices, proper testing of the code they developed, adherence and use > of a significant set of standard interfaces for our product line, and so > forth. > > Can you imagine if Oracle or ESRI or Microsoft or any other software > provider did not require their programmers/developers/engineers to use > their companies internal software development standards, including all > existing APIs, interfaces, standards, etc? There would be chaos. > > This issue is even more on the front burner with SOA gathering so much > steam. SOA mandates the use of standards. SOA typically forces cultural > changes in the enterprise - like developers and managers working more > closely together to understand, define, and document business process. > > Sorry for the slight rant, but at the end of the day, implementation of > standards is driven from the top down and the bottom up. Uptake is a > function of both policy (top down) and getting the job done (bottom up). > > I would hazzard a guess that if corporate policy stating that a given > standard will be used is coupled with resources that made it easier for > a developer to implement, then uptake would not be an issue. > > Cheers > > Carl > > >> Carl, >> >> At least you provided examples!!! >> >> All kidding aside, it is not me that I am worried about here. It is a >> group that I tend to identify with, the journeyman software developer. >> Only with their support is adoption by a significant, traction >> capable, number of real vendors and government programs possible. >> Mandated or not, developers only build what they think is reasonable. >> (Think Ada, which was a superior language but essentially failed, in >> spite of government mandate.) So you will have to convince those who >> actually build software that what you are asking them to do is >> reasonable for their cost structure and schedule. I am in no way > arguing correctness. >> You are correct, or at least more so than I am. I am pointing out that > >> "correctness" can sometimes be so impractical that it leads to > failure. >> So, if you want correctness to succeed, it has to both be reasonably >> easy to implement AND appear so to the journeyman developer. So, >> enough "theoretical correctness." We journeymen need to be provided >> with hard, real examples that meet specific functional problems. >> Otherwise, prepare for irrelevance. Standards geeks like Gary Ham and > >> Carl Reed will just be ignored, and developers will go on building >> non-standard stuff that just "works." >> >> The good thing about the contents you provided is that there is an >> example for each of the schemas provided in the document. The bad >> thing is that there are so many choices. The chance that a >> development project will cover the gamut of the choices decreases >> exponentially with each extra choice provided. The only way to get >> around that would be to build some kind of very complicated >> "information hiding" software to make implementation of the choices >> easier. It is going to be interesting. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Gary A. Ham >> Senior Research Scientist >> Battelle Memorial Institute >> 540-288-5611 (office) >> 703-869-6241 (cell) >> "You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care >> who gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl Reed OGC Account [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org] >> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:00 AM >> To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Rex Brooks >> Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: OGC UoM Best Practices guidance >> >> Gary and Rex - >> >> Fully understand. The OGC UoM and related Observations and >> Measurements work have been designed to insure that ALL metadata for a > >> given measurement (say from a sensor) can be accurately captured, >> encoded, and communicated. The OGC members have determined that for >> our standards work related to sensors etc that we must insure that the > >> accuracy of measurement semantics, measurement precision, and >> measurement accuracy and so forth must be accommodated. This does not >> mean that an application needs to use all of the capabilities - just >> that that they must be there if needed. Much of this decision has to >> do with the level of ambiguity that an application can live with. This > >> is why UoM is important. >> >> Anyway, attached is the latest OGC Observations and Measurement >> document. >> The members approved release of this Discussion Paper last month. Has >> not yet been posted to the OGC web site but will be soon. >> >> There are numerous examples showing how UoM can be expressed as part >> of a larger sensor observation encoding payload. Also shows use of >> GML, O&M and UoM used in concert. >> >> Not sure if this will make Gary's life any easier :-) >> >> Cheers >> >> Carl >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com> >> To: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <creed@opengeospatial.org>; >> <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:32 AM >> Subject: [emergency] RE: OGC UoM Best Practices guidance >> >> >>> At the risk of catching a ration of flame from most all sides >>> involved >> >>> with this discussion, I tend to favor two ways of dealing with units >>> of >>> measure: >>> >>> 1. Specify that uom be specified either in the specification or that >>> each implementation must specify what uom it uses, mandatory--and in >>> web services, you just don't partner with companies whose uom in >>> their >> >>> wsdl does not match up with yours; 2. Specify metric system, period. >>> >>> Both are aimed at letting the marketplace enforce the standard, but >>> Darwinism has a bad name in these parts, since it inevitablly means >>> letting chips fall where they may, and in these parts chips are >>> people >> >>> so both of these are non-starters. >>> >>> In the choice arena between the concerns of programming realities on >>> the ground versus getting critical information correct in critical >>> moments, I tend to fall on the side of insisting on putting the >>> burden >> >>> on the quality assurance cycles in software development and test the >>> bleep out of every last thing and just keep testing till it works 95% > >>> of the time. (Reality says 80% flies, but in this case, I have to >>> remind folks that in these parts chips are people.) >>> >>> Ciao, >>> Rex >>> >>> At 10:42 AM -0700 3/28/06, Carl Reed OGC Account wrote: >>>>As I mentioned. >>>> >>>> >>>>Carl Reed, PhD >>>>CTO and Executive Director Specification Program OGC >>>> >>>>The OGC: Helping the World to Communicate Geographically >>>> >>>>--------------------- >>>> >>>>This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use >>>>of >> >>>>addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged >>>>information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, > >>>>disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If >>>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender >>>>immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy >> all copies. >>>> >>>>"The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein >>>> >>>> >>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Units_of_Measure_Rec#10783E.pdf >>>>(PDF >>>>/<IC>) (0010783E) >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>>>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs >>>>in >> >>>>OASIS >>>>at: >>>>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.ph >>>>p >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rex Brooks >>> President, CEO >>> Starbourne Communications Design >>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>> Berkeley, CA 94702 >>> Tel: 510-849-2309 >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > >> OASIS >> at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]