ISO and Paying for Standards

About Directions

Special Announcement

Newsletter Sign Up

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

myteams.dot.ga.gov (88)
planetgs.com (77)
www.thegisforum.com (71)
www.spatialsciences.org.au (32)
www.bloglines.com (27)

Our Points

Wednesday, August 30. 2006

ISO and Paying for Standards

Jeff Thurston notes that ISO sells its standards. Indeed it does. This is from the ISO FAQ on standards (there are few other FAQs, too):

2.21 Why aren't ISO standards free?
ISO standards cost money to develop, publish and distribute. Someone has to pay. The current system whereby users are requested to pay for the standards they use, not only sustains the development process but also, very importantly, ensures that the balance of independent vs. government, private vs. public interests can be maintained.

BTW, ISO is not an abbreviation for the name of an organization; it's a word derived from the Greek meaning "equal." The organization is the International Organization for Standardization (in English).

One more thing: when an OGC standard becomes an ISO standard (Simple Features and WMS are and others are to be soon!), you can get the OGC one for free.

Posted by Adena Schutzberg in Standards at 06:00 | Comments (3) | Trackback (1) |

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

So the OGC specifications don't cost anything to develop? How does OGC achieve free specifications? I've always found the ISO pay-for-spec approach puzzling, given that they are supposed to encourage standardization and consistency. Even if the costs are minimal for them, that still presents a layer of complexity, especially for organizations with the overhead of processes of purchasing good and services.

Another layer of complexity between the OGC/ISO spec swap is synchronization. OGC's process is faster than the ISO process.

#1 anonymous hero on 2006-09-01 09:00 (Reply)

I most certainly did not say that OGC specifications don't cost anything to develop. They are free to download and use. OGC's funding is clearly laid out on its website. As for synchronization, yes, that's an issue. If you know a way around it, please share it!

#2 Adena Schutzberg (Link) on 2006-09-01 09:43 (Reply)

Exactly. This is why the OGC specs have taken off.

Syncronization: one approach could be to totally seperate abstract (models, classifications, etc.) from implementation (syntax, APIs, etc.), where ISO does the former and OGC does the latter.

#2.1 anonymous hero on 2006-09-01 13:13 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your opinion of the quality of Google's "new" U.S. dataset?

	November '09
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30