09-154 Answers to the NO Votes During the Vote for Adoption of WMTS 1.0.0

8/14/2019 09-154 Answers to the NO Votes During the Vote for Adoption of WMTS 1.0.0

1/14

Open Geospatial Consortium Inc.

Date:2009-11-09

Reference number of this document:Responses to NO votes to adoption of OpenGIS WebMap Tile Service as an Ipleentation Standard

Version:1!0!0

Category" Response to NO votes for adoption of WMTS 1!0!0

#ditors"$oan Mas% and &eit' (oa)is

Responses to NO votes to adoption of OpenGISWeb Map

Tile Service as an Implementation Standard (07-07r7!

*op+ri,'t 2009 Open Geospatial *onsorti. Inc!

To obtain additional ri,'ts of .se/ visit'ttp"!open,eospatial!or,le,al!

Warning

Recipients of this document are invited to submit, with their comments,

notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are aware and to provide

supporting documentation.

oc.ent t+pe" Response to NO votes for adoptionoc.ent s.bt+pe"

oc.ent sta,e" WMS SWG official position

oc.ent lan,.a,e" #n,lis'
http://www.opengeospatial.org/legal/http://www.opengeospatial.org/legal/http://www.opengeospatial.org/legal/


2/14

Responses to NO votes to adoption of OpenGIS Web Map Tile Service as anImplementation Standard-"#

Introd$ction

T'is doc.ent is t'e official response of t'e WMS 1!3 SWG to t'e folloin, NO votes"

epartent of efence Teresa *role+ - 2009-10-29 20"00"49

Geo*onnections - Nat.ral Reso.rces *anada 5NO6 7rian Mc8eod - 2009-10-0

14"04"0:

T'e vote as s.spended on ;ri/ 0 Oct 2009 14"04"0: -0300!

T'is doc.ent also incl.des a response to IGN ;rance t'at 'as eotes Received" :

N.ber of No >otes Received" 2

N.ber of *oents Received" 4

N.ber of ?ctive >oters 5Start6" 41

N.ber of ?ctive >oters 5*opleted6" 0

N.ber of #li,ible >oters" :9

Response of t'e WMS 1!3 SWG to NO votes for adoption of WMTS standard candidate


3/14


)epartment of )efence (NO!

*omments &it' t'e NO vote

T'e WMTS bein, considered allos t'e interface to be ipleented in .ltipledifferent a+s" R#ST/ G#T 5&>(6/ (OST 5&>(6/ (OST 5@M86 and (OST 5SO?(6!

Aoever/ 'ile e s.pport t'is ric'ness/ t'e WMTS specification does not see to

andate t'e ini. set of interfaces t'at MBST be ipleented!

In effect/ t'is eans t'at if a server ere to ipleent a &>( interface .sin, ATT(

G#T/ and a client ere to ipleent a R#STf.l interface/ bot' o.ld be copliant

it' t'e specification/ b.t t'e+ o.ld not be able to co.nicate it' eac' ot'er!

T'is is a si,nificant deficienc+ t'at o.ld res.lt in an interoperabilit+ specification t'at

co.ld not be ,.aranteed to be interoperable! Overall e o.ld s.,,est t'at to be

s.ccessf.l and idel+ adopted/ a ini. part of t'e specification needs to be ade

andator+ t'ereb+ iposin, ini. levels of interoperabilit+!

Teresa *role+ - 2009-10-29 20"00"49

Response form WMS-"+# SWG

We copletel+ s'are +o.r concerns abo.t WMTS and e 'ave debated t'is iss.e

soetie a,o!

=es/ it is tr.e t'at WMTS 'as encodin,s! It is also tr.e t'at t'e doc.ent do not favor

an+ of t'e! It is also tr.e t'at t'is is bad for interoperabilit+!

I t'in) t'at/ in OG*/ e are in point of tie 'ere t'ere is a conflict of interests"

- Tradition" in favor of &>( t'at or)ed so ell in t'e past

- 7i, corporations" in favor of SO?( for sec.rit+ and c'ainin, reasons!

- Geo-co.nit+" in favor of R#STf.l sipler sol.tions!

To decide beteen t'e is a responsibilit+ t'at is too bi, for WMS!SWG!

?rc'itect.re WG and f.t.re .sers ill decide 'ic' arc'itect.re ill in in t'e f.t.re!

Tal)in, abo.t t'is it' ?rn.lf *'ristl 5OSGeo6/ 'e said" CIt ill be nat.ral selectionC!

Mean'ile/ e t'in) t'at"

- &>( is t'e best a+ to ins.re t'at c.rrent WMS clients and serves can adapt to

WMTS

- We 'ave a andate for ?rc'itect.re WG to develop SO?( encodin,s for eac' WS

5#dinb.r,' T*6! We did o.r 'oeor) t'ere!

- We 'ad t'e obli,ation to inte,rate R#STf.l ne ideas beca.se WMTS is idea to test

t'e and beca.se since >alencia T* e 'ave a andate to consider R#ST in eac' WS!

;.rt'erore/ in t'e ords of *arl Reed 5on 2009-10-16"



4/14


CIn ,eneral t'e OG* (lannin, *oittee believes t'at t'e OG* cannot e( andor R#ST! SO?( s.pport is

optional!

*lients and servers t'at follos t'is recoendation an+ client-server interaction ill

or) for &>( or R#ST and interoperabilit+ is ,.arantied beteen t'is 2 encodin,s!

We consider t'is c'an,e a inor c'an,e t'at ill be incl.ded in t'e final version of t'e

doc.ent!



5/14


Geo*onnections - Nat$ral Reso$rces *anada (NO!

*omments &it' t'e NO vote

T'e R#STf.l WMTS specification profile/ and indeed t'e entire WMTS specification/

co.ld be e


6/14


developed and refined over t'e +ears it' R(*-st+le services in ind! T'atFs not

to sa+ t'at a service t'at confors to OWS *oon canFt also 'ave a ric'

R#ST;B8 interface! Aoever/ t'e details of 'o to define s.c' an s+nt'esis

reD.ire caref.l consideration if e are to aintain 'aroniLation aon,st t'e

different services! T'e .nderl+in, odels of OG* services as a 'ole as defined

b+ OWS *oon a+ need to be adapted to properl+ accoodate t'iss+nt'esis! S.c' consideration as considered be+ond t'e scope of version 1!0 of a

ne service since it reD.ires concerted deliberation at t'e OWS *oon level!

- ?n anal+sis of t'e .se cases t'at 'ave been presented d.rin, t'e co.rse of t'e

developent of t'e draft WMTS specification revealed t'ree ,eneral classes of .se

cases"

o *lient applications t'at s.pport t'e standard &>( reD.est ec'anis as

defined b+ all e


7/14


parties aitin, for a WMTS standard t'at satisfies t'e t'ree priar+ .se cases

o.ld be left it' not'in, d.rin, t'is tie! In contrast/ if version 1!0 of t'e

WMTS specification is released no/ t'e co.nit+ o.ld finall+ 'ave

soet'in, to or) it'/ and or) can be,in on incl.din, a ore-f.ll+ R#STf.l

interface in t'e ne

co.rse/ is different 5OpenSearc' .ses Csearc'TersC/ Cco.ntC/ CstartInde


8/14


IGN ,rance (.S!

*omments to possible c'an/e to NO vote

IGN s.pports t'e specification of a tiled WMS it' t'e ai to iprove t'e

perforances of a eb ap service in sit.ations 'ere certain constraints a+ appl+" -'i,' n.ber of reD.ests/ e!,! in a ass-ar)et conte


9/14


- a)e soe andator+ paraeters optional it' defa.lt val.es

o St+le is andator+ 'ile a defa.lt val.e can be defined in t'e capabilities

doc.ent

o Siilarl+/ defa.lt val.es co.ld be specified for forat and TileMatri


10/14


be'ind t'e a+ t'e draft specification is c.rrentl+ defined!

1! 7indin,

T'e specification does not andate an+ bindin,! $oan 'as alread+

provided an anser as to '+ t'is as t'e case b.t e o.ld li)e to ep'asiLe t'is proble!

- *lient applications ill ver+ li)el+ onl+ ipleent one bindin,

and ill t'erefore not be able to interoperate it' all WMTS servers!

- ATT( (OST @M8 and SO?( are 'eav+ei,'t sol.tions for a service

intended for ,ood perforances on t'e eb! SO?( reD.ests a+ even

be bi,,er t'an t'e tiles t'eselves! It is also ver+ diffic.lt to

.se ATT( (OST @M8SO?( in certain lan,.a,es .sed for eb client

applications s.c' as $avascript! S.,,estion" We believe t'at ATT(

G#T is ore adapted to t'e .sa,e t'at can be e


11/14


CIn ,eneral t'e OG* (lannin, *oittee believes t'at t'e OG* cannot e( andor R#ST! SO?( s.pport is

optional!

*lients and servers t'at follos t'is recoendation an+ client-server interaction ill

or) for &>( or R#ST and interoperabilit+ is ,.arantied beteen t'is 2 encodin,s!

We consider t'is c'an,e a inor c'an,e t'at ill be incl.ded in t'e final version of t'e

doc.ent!

2! Resol.tion vs scale denoinator

T'e WMTS specification .ses a scale denoinator as t'e scale paraeter!

T'is paraeter can easil+ be .nderstood b+ a '.an b.t a+ not be

t'e ost convenient for softare/ 'ic' a+ ore easil+ 'andle a

resol.tion 5in .nitspi


12/14


Secondl+/ re,ardless as to 'et'er scale denoinators or resol.tions are .sed/ .nro.nd

n.bers are ,oin, to be a realit+! T'ere are soe standard scale sets 'ic' 'ave ro.nd

scale denoinators and .nro.nd resol.tions 5e!,!/ t'e Global*RS:3Scale ell-)non

scale set6/ and soe standard scale sets 'ic' 'ave ro.nd resol.tions and .nro.nd scale

denoinators 5e!,!/ t'e Global*RS:3(i


13/14


S.,,estions"

- s'orten paraeter naes 5or define s'ort aliases6

- a)e soe andator+ paraeters optional it' defa.lt val.es

o St+le is andator+ 'ile a defa.lt val.e can be defined in

t'e capabilities doc.ent

o Siilarl+/ defa.lt val.es co.ld be specified for forat and TileMatri


14/14


ST=8# is t'e onl+ paraeter t'at co.ld possibl+ be ade optional/ '+ a)in, it an

e#RSION/ S#R>I*# and R#UB#ST canFt be optional beca.se t'at o.ld violate t'e

OWS *oon Ipleentation Specification and precl.de t'e abilit+ for a sin,le base

BR8 to s.pport .ltiple services andor .ltiple version of a service! TileMatri

Documents

09-154 Answers to the NO Votes During the Vote for Adoption of WMTS 1.0.0