Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
standards:start [2010/06/30 17:18] chamindra created |
standards:start [2010/07/06 19:22] (current) |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
======= Sahana Standards ======= | ======= Sahana Standards ======= | ||
- | Welcome to the Sahana standards homepage. Here we build and agree on cross Sahana project development and interop standards which increases the bar of the quality and flexibility of the Sahana projects towards our end goals. The evolution of these standards beyond the scope of just Sahana will be to the [[http:// | + | Welcome to the Sahana standards homepage. Here we build and agree on **cross-Sahana** project development and interop standards which increases the bar of the quality and flexibility of the Sahana projects towards our end goals. The evolution of these standards beyond the scope of just Sahana will be to the [[http:// |
- | ===== What makes an Open Standard | + | ====== New Standards ====== |
- | For a standard to be truly open (at least for us) it should have the following going for it in order of priority. | + | |
+ | ===== Interop Standards ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Development Standards ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Infrastructure Standards ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | __WIKI Restructure__ | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | ====== Standards Supported by Sahana ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | __What make a good Satandard? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Below are some of the considerations when looking at standards we should adopt as a group | ||
+ | |||
+ | - **Adoption** - How well is the standard adopted by systems and respected by practitioners forums | ||
+ | * Deployment - is it a defacto standard that is in widespread use, and therefore needs support anyway? (a la .doc or ESRI shapefile). Are there existing implementations that we can either draw upon, or can we implement a library so that ourselves and others are able to ease deployment of the standard? | ||
- **A liberally licensed specification** - Not all standards are free and some require royalties to obtain. Licenses should be aligned to the Free and Open Source principles. | - **A liberally licensed specification** - Not all standards are free and some require royalties to obtain. Licenses should be aligned to the Free and Open Source principles. | ||
- | - **An Open Community Process** - Not all standards are defined | + | |
- **An Open Source implementation** - This is not a must, but it certainly helps assure that the standard has been implemented transparently. It also help propagate the standard as any one can adopt these libraries into their products. | - **An Open Source implementation** - This is not a must, but it certainly helps assure that the standard has been implemented transparently. It also help propagate the standard as any one can adopt these libraries into their products. | ||
+ | - **An Open Community Process** - Not all standards are defined and refined in an open community process. Some require exclusive memberships before you can participate | ||
+ | * **Representation** - can anyone join? Does it cost to join? Can everyone comment? Can everyone vote? Is the breakdown of representation truly representative of end users? Does the body developing the standard have awareness and recognition of end users that are likely to adopt the standard? | ||
+ | * **Approval** - is it a democratic vote using a formal process (e.g. OASIS or W3C) or is it a ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | __Sahana Interop Matrix__ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^ Standard | ||
+ | | // | ||
+ | | RSS | ||
+ | | EDXL-DE | ||
+ | | EDXL-HAVE | ||
+ | | EDXL-RM | ||
+ | | Feedsync | ||
+ | | XForms | ||
+ | | //Alerting Standards - MSG // |||| | ||
+ | | CAP | ||
+ | | TWML | | ||
+ | | CWML | | ||
+ | | //People data exchange standard - MPR, PR, DVR// |||| | ||
+ | | PFIF | | ||
+ | | FOAF | | ||
+ | | vCARD | ||
+ | | EDXL-TEP/ | ||
+ | | //GIS data exchange standards - GIS, SM, CR// |||| | ||
+ | | KML | ||
+ | | TMS | ||
+ | | WMS | ||
+ | | XYZ | ||
+ | | GPX | ||
+ | | GML | ||
+ | | GeoRSS | ||
+ | | MGRS | | ||
+ | | // | ||
+ | | NIEM | | ||
+ | [Note 1] First implementation of PFIF 1.1, 1.2 concluding; expected completion of improved rewrite & modularization Summer 2010. | ||
+ | [Note 2] TEP has been submitted to OASIS for standardization 2nd Q 2010. TEC definition is just beginning. | ||
+ | ====== Standards Proposals ====== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | ====== Standards Representation ====== | ||
+ | * Gavin Treadgold is an individual non-voting member of the OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee. |