- From: Heidi Vanparys via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:57:48 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> The dct:Standard definition is purposely vague. We had a DCMI discussion about it somewhat recently, and I can't remember now if we made any changes to the definition, but we definitely did not want to equate it with a more rigid ISO definition (e.g. "established by consensus and approved by a recognized body") because that is more formal than DCMI intends. We had a lot of discussion about how people might interpret "recognized body" and that seemed to require a definition of its own. To be honest, I do think it is important to have a less vague definition. The "recognized body" part in the ISO definition being problematic is also described in [Standardization - What's in a name?](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306574861_Standardization_-_What's_in_a_name) That same article, and a later book by the same author, a certain Henk J. de Vries, ("Standardization: A Business Approach to the Role of National Standardization Organizations" see https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4757-3042-5 and some contents of the book on Google Books (definition list is available)) propose the following (the first article describing all arguments of why certain aspects have or have not been included in the definition): **standardization** activity of establishing and recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, directed at benefits for the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending and expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant and based on that **standard** approved specification of a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, prepared for the benefit of the party or parties involved, balancing their needs, and intended and expected to be used repeatedly or continuously, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant Could this be useful here? -- GitHub Notification of comment by heidivanparys Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/722#issuecomment-460189136 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 4 February 2019 09:57:52 UTC