What's Your Beef with Calling OGC 08-139r1 GeoPDF 2.2?
I've been asked by different folks why I think that conflating GeoPDF with the details of a georegistation technique is not a good idea. My main beef is that it confines GeoPDF to some implementation details and sets it against/in contrast to whatever is georegistered using Adobe's proposed extensions to ISO 32000. I always had a more inclusive vision for GeoPDF. There are several PDF standards: PDF/A, PDF/E, PDF/X, PDF/UA... I imagine that there might be a PDF/G some day (or, perhaps, extensions to PDF/E, e.g., PDF/EG), and I would like to say that "this is a PDF/G-compliant GeoPDF file!" I would like this blog to be a natural home for all things geospatial PDF.
However, this is merely a matter of opinion and taste. What more concerns me is that it creates the false illusion that there is some sort of specification competition where there is none. Adobe has promulgated extensions to ISO 32000 and that's the path toward the future of PDF/G (or whatever) standard is coming down the pike to be considered and approved by ISO. We support this in our products and our planning.
What's delightful is that there is a published and unencumbered specification of a technique for georegistering PDF files -- finally! This is something that I've fighting for and been working to see since 2003. I'm looking forward to Google and Yahoo! bringing me beautiful maps and imagery with queries like "battle of atlanta" or "landsat new zealand 1999-2009" and being able to actually look at it because it's in the PDF and play with it because it's georegistered. By publishing our old technique, search engines will be able to index GeoPDF files out there on the web regardless of how they were georegistered.