OGC Architecture Board (OAB) feedback on the non Webby OGC standards list:

1. Make the wording of the criteria used to decide if something should be on this list positive instead of negative. Each of these standards was a good agreement at the time but now we need simplified agreements for a larger / different audience.

2. Make the first criterium more clear. Currently it is formulated as:

It needs modernization to fully support and follow the fundamental concepts of current web architectures. For example, it uses http only as a transport protocol. In contrast, standards which use http as an interface are considered 'Webby'.

OAB discussion suggests:

• Include link to webarch
• Describe more explicitly how we think http should be used; something like 'according to current practice, resource oriented, using web linking, and including developer-oriented documentation like OpenApi 3.0's.

3. There was some protest against WMS being on this list. WMS is a well-deployed standard and is at least partly 'webby'. It uses URLs + parameters for requests, but the response is an XML document. Is that enough reason to say this standard is not webby?

4. When listing non-webby OGC standards in the roadmap, the heading name should not be "Features not covered by ongoing work" - suggestion: "Established standards in the geospatial domain"

5. Regarding the listing of IndoorGML: we should distinguish between the conceptual model, the GML encoding and the JSON encoding (now also available) and reconsider. The IndoorGML SWG would be interested in simple profiles.