[Requests] Review of 3d-tiles Community Standard Justification and related spec files

Cozzi, Patrick pcozzi at agi.com
Tue Aug 16 08:22:04 EDT 2016

Hi Carl,

Wow, thanks so much for such a careful review and valuable feedback.  I really appreciate you taking the time.

I'd like to distill this discussion into two key areas:

1. Criteria for entering the Community Standard process.  Given the fast moving nature of the young 3D field, I don't think we can hold 3D formats to the same entrance criteria as formats like GeoTIFF and GeoJSON.  The fact that 3D Tiles has 11 implementations in the justification document (and more, in general) without the branding of any standards organization is amazing.  As OGC members that want to move the field forward, this is momentum that we want to aggressively facilitate.  Let's let the formatting and TODOs wait for the final adoption vote.

2. Interoperability experiment with the 3D Portrayal Service SWG.  I agree this is a good idea.  Fraunhofer is already working in this direction; some of the work was presented at SIGGRAPH [1]. We expect an update next month in Orlando.  I hope you can attend as it would be great to discuss your feedback on this and 3D Tiles in general in person.  More broadly, 3D Tiles fits into the OGC ecosystem well as demonstrated by implementations combining 3D Tiles with CityGML, 3DPS, and WFS.  Chairs from the 3DPS and CityGML SWGs are even on the 3D Tiles submission team.


[1] http://cesiumjs.org/presentations/SIGGRAPH2016/CesiumBOF/2016-Siggraph-BoF-Showcase.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160816/23571492/attachment.html>

More information about the Requests mailing list