MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] PPW letter re CAP
Art -
We run into these issues all the time in our specification process at the
OGC. It is impossible to satisfy every requirement for every application in
every industry. There is an interesting balance between getting a spec out
for use and getting one out that is also useful! I think the old 80/20 rule
applies.
Anyway, perhaps a more positive way to position the CAP spec is to say that
this is version 1 (one) and that future (new) requirements and change
proposals will be considered and incorporated. This is the way we deal with
the enhancement issue at the OGC. We accept change proposals, instantiate a
spec Revision Working Group, work the suggested changes, and then put the
modified spec up for member vote and adoption. Some of our specs have
already gone through 5 or 6 revisions in 2 years. This does raise an issue
of backwards compatibility and deprecation. But how is this different from
any vibrant piece of technologies life cycle management?
Cheers
Carl