Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper explores the role of standards-setting organizations in maintaining the openness of geospatial standards amid increasing platformization and proprietary control. It argues that the governance structures of these organizations significantly influence whether open standards serve as public goods or become enclosures, with a shift towards proprietary solutions undermining the potential for open interoperability. The authors propose a 4Ps framework鈥擯urpose, Principles, People and Processes, and Policies and Practices鈥攖o analyze how internal governance can help uphold the public character of these standards, even as external pressures mount.
Weak governance in standards-setting organizations is pushing geospatial coordination towards proprietary platforms, threatening the very essence of open standards as public goods.
Open geospatial standards let data, services, and systems work across platforms. But openness is not just a property of specifications. It also depends on the institutions that produce them and the infrastructures in which they operate. Standards may function as digital public goods and, once embedded in public systems, as digital public infrastructure. Those roles can diverge. This paper asks when open geospatial standards remain public infrastructure rather than becoming channels of enclosure. It makes two claims. First, standards-setting governance matters: institutional design shapes whether open specifications retain their public-good character. Second, geospatial coordination is shifting toward proprietary location stacks, APIs, and cloud platforms, where roadmaps, pricing, and service terms increasingly set the rules. Sovereign-cloud and sovereign-AI strategies relocate this power rather than remove it. These dynamics reinforce each other. Weak governance pushes coordination toward the implementation layer; platformization, in turn, reduces incentives to invest in open standardization, weakening portability and FAIR reuse. Standards bodies cannot reverse platformization, but they still control the specification layer. Where legal safeguards are limited, internal governance becomes key. We frame this through four dimensions: Purpose, Principles, People and Processes, and Policies and Practices (the 4Ps framework) while stressing the limit that internal governance cannot solve alone an external structural problem.
