[Requests] Requests Digest, Vol 88, Issue 4

Peter Parslow Peter.Parslow at os.uk
Fri Mar 6 12:16:20 EST 2020


Emmanuel,
Regarding metadata, I had wondered about this too. I think you are correct that gml:metaDataProperty fits the bill in CityGML2, because it is strictly based on GML3.1.1

gml:metaDataProperty has then been deprecated in GML3.2.

Perhaps it should be promoted into the CityGML conceptual model, in order that it can then be encoded in CityGML3, which I assume will use a current version of GML. I think the CityGML SWG would need to think which of their generic elements would usefully have metadata, and the CityJSON people can hopefully contribute to that discussion.

This brings it back to the question that Clemens raised, of how CityJSON relates to CityGML3. I agree this needs further work, and I hope we (OS) can help in that.

Peter Parslow
OS Open Standards Lead
Adanac Drive, Southampton, United Kingdom, SO16 0AS
T: +44 (0)2380 055341 | M: +44 (0)7796 610020
www.os.uk | peter.parslow at os.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Requests <requests-bounces+peter.parslow=os.uk at lists.opengeospatial.org> On Behalf Of requests-request at lists.opengeospatial.org
Sent: 06 March 2020 17:00
To: requests at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Requests Digest, Vol 88, Issue 4

External Email: Take care with attachments & links.


Send Requests mailing list submissions to
        requests at lists.opengeospatial.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.opengeospatial.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frequests&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=P2vSIJ1WA1gYwtYrnY3QLrG%2BoZ0Ez1zZUAYx4xxCnlE%3D&reserved=0
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        requests-request at lists.opengeospatial.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        requests-owner at lists.opengeospatial.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Requests digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Comments on Community Standard Justification: 20-005r1,
      CityJSON v1.0 (Emmanuel Devys)
   2. Re: Comments on Community Standard Justification: 20-005r1,
      CityJSON v1.0 (Scott Simmons)
   3. Re: Comments on the draft OWS Common (Carl Reed)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 16:38:06 +0000
From: Emmanuel Devys <Emmanuel.Devys at ign.fr>
To: "requests at lists.opengeospatial.org"
        <requests at lists.opengeospatial.org>
Cc: Dimitri Sarafinof <Dimitri.Sarafinof at ign.fr>, Marie Lambois
        <Marie.Lambois at ign.fr>, Stephane Garcia <Stephane.Garcia at ign.fr>
Subject: [Requests] Comments on Community Standard Justification:
        20-005r1, CityJSON v1.0
Message-ID:
        <10DA769A5C37DF408C33DC5AF4CF2E1B010FF4A3C4 at mailex1.ign.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

PART A

1. Evaluator: Emmanuel Devys (IGN) - emmanuel.devys at ign.fr

2. Submission: 20-005r1, Community Standard Justification: CityJSON v1.0



PART B


1. Requirement: General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: CityGML compatibility


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes:
Key features not supported in CityJSON should be clarified in the submission and in the CityJSON specification submitted to the OGC, such as no LOD4, TIC (Terrain Intersection Curve) and RasterRelief....

Note1: The reference provided https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityjson.org%2Fcitygml-compatibility%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=npsxsDWSM5B7VYctJoG4bvIAsE7XU2M7ne1F88x0y9c%3D&reserved=0 is not so clear, with some significant "details" not supported under the "CityGML features supported" section.
Note2: In the reference provided https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityjson.org%2Fcitygml-compatibility%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=npsxsDWSM5B7VYctJoG4bvIAsE7XU2M7ne1F88x0y9c%3D&reserved=0, it seems that the New features section is only the addition of the support for dataset metadata, so there is only 1 new feature (singular). In the Community Standard Justification: 20-005r1, this "New features" is also used in Plural in the document in the sentence "Some features that are wished by practitioners, but that are not in CityGML (e.g., metadata support), are built-in CityJSON".

2-            Question: isn't the general <gml:metaDataProperty> in CityGML capable of handling metadata for the CityModel? I would have thought so. If this supposed "New feature" in CityJSON is confirmed as a difference with CityGML, there should be some harmonization in the future between CityGML (v3) and CityJSON, rather than diverging in handling metadata for 3D CityModels in the OGC, whatever the encoding is. This is a HOT topic !


PART B


1. Requirement: General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: CityGML compatibility


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes:
2-            Question: isn't the general <gml:metaDataProperty> in CityGML capable of handling metadata for the CityModel? I would have thought so. If this supposed "New feature" in CityJSON is confirmed as a difference with CityGML, there should be some harmonization in the future between CityGML (v3) and CityJSON, rather than diverging in handling metadata for 3D CityModels in the OGC, whatever the encoding is. This is a HOT topic (or it should presumably be)!


PART B


1. Requirement: General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: Extensions to the core model


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes: Relation / compatibility between CityJSON Extensions and CityGML ADE
Question: is the CityJSON Extensions based on the CityGML ADE (or not)? This should be clarified. The sentence "This is conceptually akin to the Application Domain Extensions (ADEs) in CityGML" is not sufficiently providing a technical clarification.


PART B


1. Requirement: General


2. Implementation Specification Section number: General


3. Criticality: Major


4. Comments/justifications for changes:
The vision of the relationship and compatibility between CityGML and CityJSON should (or could ideally) be clarified. As CityGML v3 separates the conceptual model and the encodings (such as GML and JSON), a clarification in principle (in CityJSON) would be welcome. Once again, divergence should be avoided for 3D Geo CityModels, at least inside the OGC. By the way, the JSON encoding is (of course) of major interest.

Thanks for considering these comments

Emmanuel Devys
IGN D?partement Normalisation et r?f?rentiels projets| Service des Projets et Prestations direction des programmes et de l'appui aux politiques publiques T +33 (0) 1 43 98 85 75 ign.fr<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ign.fr%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=u5jrcKhv7O6%2FhDMsYz8t2XWQ62dPZGDR3N5D%2BhSyWpk%3D&reserved=0> - geoportail.gouv.fr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opengeospatial.org%2Fpipermail%2Frequests%2Fattachments%2F20200305%2F7b60eb83%2Fattachment-0001.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=lhivD7bF%2BddEhNAGuaB%2FKCgu2SuSsWuvKDIpSF80Qu4%3D&reserved=0>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 08:58:26 -0700
From: Scott Simmons <ssimmons at ogc.org>
To: Emmanuel Devys <Emmanuel.Devys at ign.fr>
Cc: "requests at lists.opengeospatial.org"
        <requests at lists.opengeospatial.org>, Stephane Garcia
        <Stephane.Garcia at ign.fr>, Dimitri Sarafinof
        <Dimitri.Sarafinof at ign.fr>, Marie Lambois <Marie.Lambois at ign.fr>
Subject: Re: [Requests] Comments on Community Standard Justification:
        20-005r1, CityJSON v1.0
Message-ID: <2560A6C9-569A-46D7-BD95-49034229F3A1 at ogc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thank you, Emmanuel!
Scott

> On Mar 5, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Emmanuel Devys via Requests <requests at lists.opengeospatial.org> wrote:
>
> PART A
>
> 1. Evaluator: Emmanuel Devys (IGN) - emmanuel.devys at ign.fr
> <mailto:emmanuel.devys at ign.fr>
>
> 2. Submission: 20-005r1, Community Standard Justification: CityJSON
> v1.0
>
>
>
> PART B
>
>
> 1. Requirement: General
>
>
> 2. Implementation Specification Section number: CityGML compatibility
>
>
> 3. Criticality: Major
>
>
> 4. Comments/justifications for changes:
> Key features not supported in CityJSON should be clarified in the submission and in the CityJSON specification submitted to the OGC, such as no LOD4, TIC (Terrain Intersection Curve) and RasterRelief?.
>
> Note1: The reference provided https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityjson.org%2Fcitygml-compatibility%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=npsxsDWSM5B7VYctJoG4bvIAsE7XU2M7ne1F88x0y9c%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityjson.org%2Fcitygml-compatibility%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=npsxsDWSM5B7VYctJoG4bvIAsE7XU2M7ne1F88x0y9c%3D&reserved=0> is not so clear, with some significant ?details? not supported under the ?CityGML features supported? section.
> Note2: In the reference provided https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityjson.org%2Fcitygml-compatibility%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=npsxsDWSM5B7VYctJoG4bvIAsE7XU2M7ne1F88x0y9c%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityjson.org%2Fcitygml-compatibility%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=npsxsDWSM5B7VYctJoG4bvIAsE7XU2M7ne1F88x0y9c%3D&reserved=0>, it seems that the New features section is only the addition of the support for dataset metadata, so there is only 1 new feature (singular). In the Community Standard Justification: 20-005r1, this ?New features? is also used in Plural in the document in the sentence ?Some features that are wished by practitioners, but that are not in CityGML (e.g., metadata support), are built-in CityJSON?.
>
> 2-            Question: isn?t the general <gml:metaDataProperty> in CityGML capable of handling metadata for the CityModel? I would have thought so. If this supposed ?New feature? in CityJSON is confirmed as a difference with CityGML, there should be some harmonization in the future between CityGML (v3) and CityJSON, rather than diverging in handling metadata for 3D CityModels in the OGC, whatever the encoding is. This is a HOT topic !
>
>
> PART B
>
>
> 1. Requirement: General
>
>
> 2. Implementation Specification Section number: CityGML compatibility
>
>
> 3. Criticality: Major
>
>
> 4. Comments/justifications for changes:
> 2-            Question: isn?t the general <gml:metaDataProperty> in CityGML capable of handling metadata for the CityModel? I would have thought so. If this supposed ?New feature? in CityJSON is confirmed as a difference with CityGML, there should be some harmonization in the future between CityGML (v3) and CityJSON, rather than diverging in handling metadata for 3D CityModels in the OGC, whatever the encoding is. This is a HOT topic (or it should presumably be)!
>
>
> PART B
>
>
> 1. Requirement: General
>
>
> 2. Implementation Specification Section number: Extensions to the core
> model
>
>
> 3. Criticality: Major
>
>
> 4. Comments/justifications for changes: Relation / compatibility
> between CityJSON Extensions and CityGML ADE
> Question: is the CityJSON Extensions based on the CityGML ADE (or not)? This should be clarified. The sentence ?This is conceptually akin to the Application Domain Extensions (ADEs) in CityGML? is not sufficiently providing a technical clarification.
>
>
> PART B
>
>
> 1. Requirement: General
>
>
> 2. Implementation Specification Section number: General
>
>
> 3. Criticality: Major
>
>
> 4. Comments/justifications for changes:
> The vision of the relationship and compatibility between CityGML and CityJSON should (or could ideally) be clarified. As CityGML v3 separates the conceptual model and the encodings (such as GML and JSON), a clarification in principle (in CityJSON) would be welcome. Once again, divergence should be avoided for 3D Geo CityModels, at least inside the OGC. By the way, the JSON encoding is (of course) of major interest.
>
> Thanks for considering these comments
>
> Emmanuel Devys
> IGN D?partement Normalisation et r?f?rentiels projets| Service des
> Projets et Prestations DIRECTION DES PROGRAMMES ET DE L?APPUI AUX
> POLITIQUES PUBLIQUES T +33 (0) 1 43 98 85 75 ign.fr
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ign.fr%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d2
> 59108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108
> 438858521&sdata=u5jrcKhv7O6%2FhDMsYz8t2XWQ62dPZGDR3N5D%2BhSyWpk%3D
> &reserved=0> ? geoportail.gouv.fr <x-msg://80/geoportail.gouv.fr>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You may visit our Privacy Policy at https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opengeospatial.org%2Fprivacy&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C0%7C637191108438858521&sdata=DKjKqh%2ByXdjl%2Bt8PZD8QMPftruRgUDi350X%2Fv2D4YcU%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opengeospatial.org%2Fprivacy&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C0%7C637191108438858521&sdata=DKjKqh%2ByXdjl%2Bt8PZD8QMPftruRgUDi350X%2Fv2D4YcU%3D&reserved=0>.
> Requests mailing list
> Requests at lists.opengeospatial.org
> <mailto:Requests at lists.opengeospatial.org>
> You may also unsubscribe or manage your OGC public list subscriptions
> at
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.opengeospatial.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frequests&data=02%7C01%
> 7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc
> 5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=P2vSIJ1
> WA1gYwtYrnY3QLrG%2BoZ0Ez1zZUAYx4xxCnlE%3D&reserved=0
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis
> ts.opengeospatial.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frequests&data=02%7C01
> %7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742d
> c5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=P2vSIJ
> 1WA1gYwtYrnY3QLrG%2BoZ0Ez1zZUAYx4xxCnlE%3D&reserved=0>

--
Keep up with all the OGC news by signing up to our quarterly newsletter at?
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter.opengeospatial.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438858521&sdata=vTEdYrUsqI2zGtbDGWnCndIevzDyw1CB1Oyfs%2BXstN0%3D&reserved=0
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter.opengeospatial.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438868472&sdata=H6ly1hS%2Bg4te6CjJxZHzv63AbKsVhSX82g1X7cdwdAo%3D&reserved=0>



_Interested in attending the
next OGC Technical and Planning Committee Meeting? Find out more at?
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ogcmeet.org&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438868472&sdata=YlSQxuN1YFM3BjWY9xJ1tE40PiRJ0AVx9VuonM0VODE%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ogcmeet.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438868472&sdata=7vcaPqDyiLEqE1D%2B%2BQ2baNRAXSehjfyPkKnUqn5d6YE%3D&reserved=0>_

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opengeospatial.org%2Fpipermail%2Frequests%2Fattachments%2F20200306%2F6227587d%2Fattachment-0001.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438868472&sdata=FCq0ZPFOZVRuNeJ1MgLBMDTXSewWBSrFfChNRa%2FIxV0%3D&reserved=0>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:47:47 -0700
From: Carl Reed <carl.n.reed at gmail.com>
To: requests at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Re: [Requests] Comments on the draft OWS Common
Message-ID:
        <CAJcQiLdSZvEDuQL4RoxEARpmjoedoDXVjxvT+hECaOiW-OS_Dw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Scott -

I sent these comments and suggested edits to Chuck a couple of weeks ago.
However, I thought I should make the comment submission official!

Attached is a Word document with the suggested edits and comments.
Unfortunately, there are simply too many edits/comments to use the comment template :-)

Let me know if there are any questions. I know Chuck is really busy right now so I am adding to his "pile" of things to do!

Regards

Carl

--
Carl Reed, PhD
Carl Reed and Associates

Mobile: 970-402-0284

?Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.?

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend"

? Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Founding Father
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opengeospatial.org%2Fpipermail%2Frequests%2Fattachments%2F20200306%2F21ccb515%2Fattachment-0001.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438868472&sdata=7gM4wLXNFy9TcXo%2BSaRgEl%2B1YzkfnI%2Fb19u%2FZypzoG0%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft OGC API CNR Edits and COmments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 177502 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opengeospatial.org%2Fpipermail%2Frequests%2Fattachments%2F20200306%2F21ccb515%2Fattachment-0001.docx&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438868472&sdata=T%2BND2gYzrgR5ZylyIHEecmZB0rbxItsAQzj34a4yylA%3D&reserved=0>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
You may visit our Privacy Policy at https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opengeospatial.org%2Fprivacy&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C0%7C637191108438868472&sdata=av02I%2FXxtVxUgH5yAwyqs99tA6GWKAl4xm7w1SnRW8U%3D&reserved=0.
Requests mailing list
Requests at lists.opengeospatial.org
You may also unsubscribe or manage your OGC public list subscriptions at
 https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.opengeospatial.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frequests&data=02%7C01%7Cpeter.parslow%40os.uk%7C850a2807805c460d259108d7c1efe70c%7C7988742dc5434b9a87a910a7b354d289%7C0%7C1%7C637191108438868472&sdata=OTKVLWPSaGfIOEI2T8E4wCXAAZ01x9pSjleg%2FYz2Kb0%3D&reserved=0


------------------------------

End of Requests Digest, Vol 88, Issue 4
***************************************


This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey Limited (Company Registration number 09121572)
Registered Office: Explorer House
Adanac Drive
Southampton SO16 0AS
Tel: 03456 050505
http://www.os.uk


More information about the Requests mailing list