The OGC Business Value Committee (BVC) will directly engage senior managers, commercial, sales and marketing professionals from the OGC membership in activities to identify, organize and promote the business value of OGC standards. These activities include a long-term vision to develop (through case studies and reference implementations) a pervasive value platform for using OGC and complementary standards; as well as defining a business model to address a Standards Value Model, incorporating both costs and benefits. The BVC will also provide a website in which OGC members may quickly and easily find business value data for use in their own domains and presentations.
The mission of the BVC is to
1) Assess the effort (costs) and outcomes (benefits) required to successfully use geospatial standards
2) Understand and articulate the advantages of developing and using OGC standards
3) Enable the wider community of stakeholders to leverage business value as a tool to foster investment and implementation
The BVC will assess the return on investment requirements in line with the value of geospatial standards and highlight how using OGC® standards can offer value across the community in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.
The Business Value Committee email list is open to both members and non-members. Subscribe to the list here.
The OGC Planning Committee is granted authority to operate by the OGC Bylaws. Principal Membership is provided for organizations that wish to participate in the planning and management of the Consortium's technology development process.
The Planning Committee has ultimate responsibility for approving Technical Committee recommendations for the adoption and release of OGC standards, and for Specification Program planning.The Planning Committee:
- Is involved in strategic technology planning regarding the Consortium’s development of open geoprocessing standards that have the greatest possible chance of being adopted in the market.Work on development of the Consortium's message and strategic positioning within the IT community and formulation of the Consortium's Information Community and market outreach strategies
- Recommends prospective Directors and to votes to ratify the Board of Directors’ approved slate of candidate directors of the Consortium;
- Discusses and votes on recommendations from the Technical Committee;
- Discusses and provides guidance on relationships with other standards bodies;
- Discusses and provides guidance on the OGC Business Plan. This includes guidance on market focus and strategic direction;
- Reviews and comments on key PR materials;
- Discusses, provides guidance, and vote on any OGC Policies and Procedures documents;
- Conducts discussions and provide recommendations regarding issues that effect the achievement of the mission and objectives of the OGC.
The work of the Planning Committee is guided by the PC policies and Procedures.
The OGC membership process is operationally organized into groups and subgroups, each group having a specified role and level of responsibility. There are three major groups, called Committees: The Technical, the Planning and the Strategic Management Advisory Committees.
The Technical Committee is responsible for all aspects of the formal consensus OGC specification process. This includes:
- Coordinate development of and modifications to the OpenGIS Abstract Specification;
- Coordinate development and adoption of OpenGIS Implementation Specifications;
- Act on specification change proposals (acceptance, rejection, and conditional acceptance);
- Many responsibilities concerning evaluation, approval and recommendations of various documents and proposals.
Above all, the Technical Committee provides an open forum for professional discussion of issues and items related to the consensus development and/or evaluation and approval of specifications that provide the ability to build and deploy interoperable geospatial solutions in the larger IT domain. The TC also has methodology in place to govern its composition, its meetings and meeting agendas, and voting procedures.
In order to carry out the business of the TC in a timely manner, three types of subgroups of the TC may be formed. These groups address the four major needs for activity within the TC:
- To deal with procedural and definitional tasks (subcommittees, SC);
- To work on new OpenGIS Specification or Abstract Specifications that have been proposed through the OGC RFC or RFP process; (Working Group)
- To discuss specific technology or user domain requirements for interoperability (Working Group);
- Single-purpose groups to work on revision of Adopted Specifications (revision working groups, RWG);
There are two Technical Committee Representatives to the Planning Committee. Currently those Representatives are:
An election is now required.
For more information regarding the roles, responsibilities and processes of the OGC Technical Committee, visit the Technical Committee Policies and Procedures.
The CITE Subcommittee provides guidance to and advise the OGC staff on the operation of the Compliance and Interoperability Testing and Evaluation Program (CITE) of the Consortium. The Sub committee provides a forum for an open, consensus discussion regarding approaches and issues related to conformance and interoperability testing becoming an integral component in the OGC standards process. Further, the Subcommittee works with members and OGC staff to insure there is a well understood process in place to insure that vendors can achieve OGC compliance certification in a timely, cost effective manner. The SC also serves as the portal for members to provide support directly to the CITE process. The CITE SC is a subgroup of the OGC Technical Committee.The DocTeam will work with OGC staff and OGC members to define, enforce and educate on documentation guidelines (format, templates, style) within the OGC. It will work with OGC staff and OGC members to maintain strong linkages between the Implementation Specifications and the Abstract Specification with the goal of maintaining a core model upon which all OGC specifications and specification development activities are based.
The mission of the OAB is to provide a forum within which Consortium wide standards architecture issues can be discussed and deliberated with the intent of providing guidance and recommendations to the TC and the PC on these issues.
Specifically, the OGC Architecture Board works with the TC and the PC to insure architecture consistency of the Baseline and provide guidance to the OGC membership to insure strong life cycle management of the OGC standards baseline. In order to properly provide such guidance and perform the Governance functions as outlined below, the OAB can, at its discretion, evaluate current technology issues and identify gaps in the architecture that need to be responded to by the Membership.
The elected membership of the OAB as of the close of the October 2010 election are:
- Andreas Matheus, U. of Bundeswehr (ITIS)
- Arnulf Christl, Open Source Geospatial Foundation OSGeo
- Simon Cox, CSIRO
- Doug Nebert, USGS
- Frederic Houbie, Intergraph
- John Herring, Oracle
- Josh Lieberman, Deloitte
- Mike Botts, Botts Innovative Research
- Nicolas Lesage, IGN
- Paul Scarponcini, Bentley
- Rick Pearsall, Individual
- Satish Sankaran, ESRI
OAB Emeritus Members who have requested observer status:
- Ron Lake (Galdos)
- Charles Roswell, Individual
- Peter Vretanos (CubeWerx)
The Voting member representing OGC staff is George Percivall, OGC Chief Architect. The OAB is facilitated and Chaired by Carl Reed of OGC staff. The OAB Policies and Procedures can be downloaded from the OGC website.
The OGC NID (URN scheme- RFC 5165 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc5165.html) established the OGC naming authority as responsible for reviewing and registering any proposed OGC urn usage. The OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA) is a sub-committee of the OGC Technical Committee.
In June 2010 OGC revised the naming policy to use http URIs to identify persistent OGC resources instead of URNs. The OGC-NA has developed a series of more detailed policies
- management of the OGC URI space http://www.opengis.net/doc/ogc-na-policies
- identifiers for resources of particular scopes, including
- documents http://www.opengis.net/doc/doc-names
- definitions http://www.opengis.net/doc/def-names-1
- specification-elements http://www.opengis.net/doc/spec-names
- OGC-NA registers http://www.opengis.net/def/register/
These are available from http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/policies/directives.
The OGC-NA has a formal role in the process of publication of OGC Standards and other documents to review proposed persistent URI. A brief guideline for editors submitting URIs for review by OGC-NA is provided.
OGC-NA Chair: Simon Cox
Current list of OGCNA members: http://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=276&tab=1
The work of the REST Sub Committee of the OGC Standards Program is to define a set of best practices and potentially rules for use in creating REST serializations/instances of existing or furture OGC web services standards.
Chair: Josh Lieberman
The 3D Information Management (3DIM) Domain Working Group is facilitating the definition and development of interface and encoding standards that enable software to develop solutions that allowinfrastructure owners, builders, emergency responders, community planners, and the traveling public to better manage and navigate complex built environments. Effective integration of these software data and services has eluded the geospatial and CAD industry for decades. Today, through the cooperation of diverse stakeholders, integrated infrastructure information systems will be achieved. OGC members and partners will work in an iterative development process to achieve incremental demonstrations of real solutions.
A great deal of technical innovation has been accomplished in the areas of CAD, AEC, geospatial, 3D visualization, and urban simulation. A variety of products, information and services abound in each of these environments. A framework of data interoperability should exist across the lifecycle of building and infrastructure investment: planning, design, construction, operation, and decommissioning. This work is of interest to the geospatial community in that there is a growing need for technologies and information to effectively interoperate between these domains to support a range of vital services and decision support needs. The working group was formed in 2005 to identify and act on opportunities to improve interoperability of geospatial data and services across these domains.
The WG formally meets at quarterly OGC Technical Committee meetings and holds regular teleconferences. An email Listserv is used by WG members for communications as well as a robust collaboration space in the web-based OGC Portal.
OGC and the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS) in the U.S. have a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to cooperate in areas of interest for the 3DIM WG. OGC also has an MoU with IAI International; Working Group participants are piloting the extension of IFC to enable richer geospatial descriptions (http://www.opengeospatial.org/pressroom/pressreleases/454). OGC and the Web3D Consortium have an MoU to work together to cooperatively advance standards to support web-based 3D visualization, modeling and simulation (http://www.opengeospatial.org/pressroom/pressreleases/650). OGC and the Special Interest Group (SIG) 3D have signed an MoU to cooperate in standards development and promotion of standards for the exchange and visualization of 3D geospatial content using Web-based technologies (http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/media/2011/000446.html). OGC also has a liaison with the W3C Point of Interest Working Group through several OGC staff members and OGC members participating in the group (http://www.w3.org/2010/POI).
Working Group Chair: Scott Simmons (CACI). Co-Vice Chairs: Carsten Roensdorf (Ordnance Survey) and Benjamin Hagedorn (U of Potsdam). Please direct inquiries for further information and opportunities for collaboration here: scsimmons at caci dot com.