OGC Web Services, Phase 2

Go Directly to the Request for Quotation Document
Go Directly to the Request for Quotation Clarifications
Go Directly to the Information on the OWS-2 Bidder's Conference

Building on previous work in other OGC initiatives and technical working groups, selected OWS-2 participants will work collaboratively to extend and "ruggedize" existing and draft OpenGIS standards into a robust and complete interoperability framework for implementing multivendor enterprise -- and enterprise-to-enterprise -- solutions in government and business. The work will address a rich set of requirements provided by OWS-2`s public and private sector sponsors. Sponsors include: The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Spot Image (France), Sun Microsystems, and other organizations.

Participants will work in the following areas:
  • Common Architecture: using the W3C's WSDL and SOAP standards for "publishing, finding and binding" geoprocessing services.
  • Technical Baseline Maturation: Developing compliance tests for and improving the OpenGIS Specifications for Web Map Service (WMS), Web Feature Service (WFS), Web Coverage Service (WCS), Web Object Service (WOS), Catalog Services - Web (CS-W) and Geography Mark-up Language (GML 3.x.). A Reference Implementation for Web Coverage Server and for an Integrated Client will be created under this initiative.
  • Image Handling and Decision Support Tools: "Finding, binding, and chaining" individual Web accessible image archival and processing functions sequentially into complete workflows.
  • Information Interoperability: advancing information interoperability using GML and advancing connections with Web Feature Server and GML 3.
  • Open Location Services. New additions and enhancements will be made to the existing Open Location Services framework.

OGC Web Services, Phase 2 (OWS-2) Request For Quotation and Call For Participation

This call seeks technology developers interested in a major Interoperability Initiative to develop and enhance OGC Web Services standards that enable easy discovery, access and use of geographic data and geoprocessing services. The OGC Web Services Phase 2 (OWS-2) testbed advances OGC Web Services (OWS), the set of OpenGIS® Specifications for interfaces, schemas and encodings that comprise the interoperability framework for the emerging "Spatial Web."

As predicted at this site earlier, there has been a change in funding status for the better for the OWS-2 Initiative. There are also some new requirements and, as a result of the new requirements, the RFQ has been updated. The updated RFQ sections can be found below.

Proposals are due by January 9, 2004.

Click a link to download the .zip archive:
Original OGC Web Services, Phase 2 RFQ (doc format).zip
Original OGC Web Services, Phase 2 RFQ (pdf format).zip

Redlined OGC Web Services, Phase 2 RFQ with new requirement updates and proposal formatting updates (MS-Word format).zip

OGC Web Services, Phase 2 (OWS-2) RFQ Clarifications

Question #1:

In the OWS-2 RFQ Section 5.1, Proposal Outline, you refer to a Technical Volume and a Cost Volume, yet, the proposal template that was provided in the RFQ archive is in the same single volume format as for all previous initiatives. Please clarify.

Clarification #1:

The two volume concept allows us to separate the techncial information in your proposal from the cost information. The template has a clear division, starting at section 4, between these two sections. The evaluation team would appreciate it if you could submit sections 1 through 3 and sections 4 through 6 as separate documents.

Question #2:

On page 18 of Annex B under TBM it is stated "This section of the RFQ will indicate sections of the Technical Baseline that require work ..." and then indicates explicitly that for each of the specs identified that the improvement will be "resulting in version *.*" (a minor version number increase).

However, the response to bidders questions 1. and 8. and other discussion during the conference made it clear that the initiative will only generate change requests, and it is the responsibility of the relevant RWG to execute spec revision.

The latter does appear to correctly represent OGC procedures, so the RFQ is slightly misleading.

Clarification #2:

This section of the RFP is a discussion of the technology maturation work identified in the OGC Technical Plan for the OWS-2 time period. The scope of that discussion includes both the Interoperability Program (IP) and the Specification Program (SP). As an IP initiative, however, OWS-2 can only contribute to part of the effort. The remainder would have to be accomplished in the SP under its Policies and Procedures. The rest of the TBM section should be read in terms of the contribution that OWS-2 will make toward fulfilling the OGC Technical Plan.

Question #3:

In the section of Annex B, it states that "The integrated Client shall be provided as open source and shall be...". If the proposed integrated client is built based on our exisitng OGC software component, do we have to out source the whole software, or alternatively, only partically out source the OGC interfaces implemented for the RFQ in the integrated client? In the latter case, it appears more realistic and should be enough for the third party customzation.

Clarification #3:

The objective of the reference implemention in the Information Interoperablity thread is to have a full source tree that can be used as a guide by anyone who wishes to build an application using OGC interfaces. Software built on existing, non-opensouce, software would not meet this objective. There are other oportuntites, such as the Image Handling client, that can be addressed using commercial software products.

Question #4:

I have not seen any clarification of the statements made in the bidder's conference re non-US participation in the GeoScout related work items in Information Interoperability.

Clarification #4:

As stated in the updated RFQ posted on December 23, 2003, the non-US participation restriction applies to only requirement GS-2.

Question #5:

The proposal template has required sections 2.1 through 2.8, which are to be supplied for each thread on which we are responding.

Section 5.1 of the RFQ provides desired page lengths by section. Which of the following structures is then implied:

Option 1:

          Common Architecture
            2.1 ...
            2.2 ...
          Technical Baseline Maturation


Option 2:

            Common Architecture
            Technical Baseline Maturation
            Common Architecture
            Technical Baseline Maturation

Clarification #5:

Option 1 is the correct format - some additional clarifications:

Each section of the proposal should include all of the paragraphs 2.1 through 2.8.

Paragraphs that you are not responding to should consist of just the header.

If you are proposing resources that would apply to more than one section, you can describe your proposal in one section and reference the relevant paragraphs in the other sections.

Question #6:

  1. The Statement of Requirements and the answers thus far appear to imply that WFS support for GML 3. is an important objective of the OWS 2.0. (II and TM threads in particular). Is this correct?
  2. At the same time, it would appear that this is not in the cards (Support for Version 3.) for Version 1.1. Does this mean that additional changes can be proposed in these threads to achieve GML v3 compliance?

Clarification #6:

WFS support for GML 3.0 is a core objective for OWS-2. If the approved version of the WFS specification is not sufficient to support GML 3.0, then the initiative will prototype the required changes and a change request to the WFS specification will be generated.

Question #7:

Your responses to my Question # 1 and somebody else's Question # 5 still leave me confused. It appears to me that the template provided for the RFQ response does not match the proposal outline provided in the RFQ.

You have indicated that each thread responded to by an organization should include sections 2.1 through 2.8 (as listed in the template). However, based on the outline, under Proposed Contribution, there would only be 5 sections for each thread, those being 1) Specification Development; 2) Component Development; 3) Demonstration or Test Development; 4) Data; and, 5) Personnel. The remaing three sections indicated in the template, i.e., Facilities, Hardware, and Software would be presented once in the Cost Volume under Level of Effort Estimate. Please clarify.

Clarification #7:

We have made further changes to the RFQ and the template to ensure consistency. Additionally, we have provided spreadsheet templates for use in your responses. You may obtain all of these together here or individually:

Question #8:

Annex B refers to WMS 1.2 (p67) and references it again in Appendix B of Annex A (OpenGIS® Web Map Service (WMS) Implementation Specification, version 1.2, available at the OGC web site). However, the most recent WMS version I can find at this location is WMS1.1.1. Is the correct WMS version 1.1.1 or 1.2? If it is 1.2, where is the documentation?

Clarification #8:

The initiative will use the most current version of the WMS specification that is available at the time of kickoff as the baseline. WMS 1.2 was removed from the public until coordination with the ISO version could be completed and approved by the OGC TC. This approval should come at the January TC/PC meeting. So... the answer is that we will NOT use 1.1.1 as the baseline and that we will use the next version (rumor has it that the WMS RWG may number it 1.3).

Question #9:

Section 2.1 of the main RFQ body states:

This RFQ assumes the recipient is not only familiar with the OGC mission, organization, and process, but is an OGC member. Non-member proposals will be considered only if a completed application for OGC membership accompanies or precedes a letter of intent stating that the organization in question will submit a proposal.

However, the Interoperability Program policies state:

If a selected Participant is not an OGC member, they should begin the membership registration process. Membership will be required before the final Participant contract is signed.

Which is correct?

Clarification #9:

The Interoperability Program policies were adopted by the OGC membership some time ago and the RFQ tempalte was simply not updated to reflect this new policy element.

Therefore, the answer to this question is that the Interoperability Program policies are correct. This means that proposing organizations do not have to be an OGC member to submit a proposal, but that they do have to become a member to participate in the initiative.

OGC Web Services, Phase 2 (OWS-2) Bidder's Conference

A Bidder's Conference (a conference call) will be held, as announced in the RFQ, on December 18, 2003. Questions for the call must be sent to bidder [at] opengeospatial [dot] org by 2200 GMT on December 15, 2003. The conference call will be held twice during the day to accommodate participants in European and Asian time zones.

  • Bidder's Conference 1 (Europe, US East) -
    Dial-in Number: +1 405 244 5555 passcode 5699# Time: 0800 EST (1300 UTC)
  • Bidder's Conference 2 (US West, Asia) -
    Dial-in Number: +1 405 244 5555 passcode 5699# Time: 1800 EST (2300 UTC)
  • Download the the Bidder's Conference Briefing