Top 5 Recent Articles
- Biography (1)
- Blog (26)
- Changes (1)
- Customers (1)
- Education (2)
- General Software (21)
- Image Catalog (2)
- Licensing (1)
- ManifoldGIS (3)
- MySQL Spatial (2)
- Networking and Routing (including Optimization) (3)
- Oracle Spatial (57)
- PostGIS (20)
- Press Releases (1)
- Source code (6)
- Space Curves (1)
- Spatial DB comparison (1)
- SQL (1)
- SQL Server Blog (13)
- SQL Server Spatial (General) (15)
- SQL Server Spatial (LRS) (37)
- Stored Procedure (2)
- XML (5)
There was a recent discussion about renewing PostGIS’s OGC Certificates.
The discussion was interesting as it goes to the heart of the value of certification in the light of the evolution of standards.
The contribution to the discussion was mostly an observation about product value and market positioning. And the standards I had in mind were the Simple Features Specification 1.1 and 1.2 standards. Now I may be wrong about the SFS standards; if I am please forgive me.
Anyway here are my comments.
The SFS 1.1 and 1.2 (plus SQL/MM) standards are foundational, but restrictive and static.
There appears to be no evolution to create additional functionality for users in the vector space. So attaining compliance was important years ago but of little value in the marketplace today.
The certificates received years ago are functionally valid today.
Unless [there is pressure to remove the] references to that past compliance, what was done is sufficient.
But it is backwards looking.
PostGIS’s power is its very extensive, dynamic, and evolutionary API that can’t be recognised in the current specification space.
PostGIS has moved on, unlike so many other DB implementations, from those standards. That is its acknowledged power. Demonstrating its value, looking forward, not backwards, is PostGIS’s future.
Just my 2c worth.