- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:01:36 +0200
- To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz42OOnTDmZhMpcbbzrXqRvkbW18hH1Oa5BJdxEOm_09aKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Alejandro, Here is an attempt to bring this matter to an end. I hope we UCR editors can make a decision and that the rest of the group can live with that decision. I propose the following: 1) We choose either 'advice' or 'recommended way'. I have a slight preference for 'recommended way', because it is more singular. But I can live with 'advice'. 2) In the introduction to the chapter 'accepted requirements' we add a note explaining how 'advice'/'recommended way' should be interpreted: it could be something formal (a Recommendation/Standard/...) or something informal. What do you think? Greetings, Frans 2015-07-10 13:30 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>: > +1 for "recommended way" > > Jeremy > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 13:21 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > >> In the meeting of 2015-07-01 (minutes are here >> <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes>) the word "advice" was >> suggested. >> >> My opinion on that alternative is that it is good with respect to leaving >> open the sort of advice that will be given (a recommendation, a >> Recommendation, a Standard, ...), it also leaves open the option of having >> many different solutions to the problem. Which in my mind is generally >> undesirable. >> >> Regards, >> Frans >> >> 2015-06-26 16:04 GMT+02:00 Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk>: >> >>> +1 to “recommended way” >>> >>> >>> >>> I am happy that this terminology is sufficiently different to w3c >>> “Recommendation”, and we can always put a note in the document to make that >>> clear >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Rachel >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com] >>> *Sent:* 26 June 2015 09:23 >>> *To:* Frans Knibbe; Scott Serich >>> *Cc:* Alejandro Llaves; Linda van den Brink; Joshua Lieberman; SDW WG >>> Public List >>> *Subject:* Re: Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document. >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 to "recommended way" >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 13:18 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Well. considering the comments so far I think 'recommended way' is a >>> good candidate. It is clearly singular, and to my knowledge it is not a >>> term that has already been loaded with extra meaning somewhere (and, for >>> the sake of posterit, let's not do that ourselves :-)). Also, 'recommended >>> way' in my mind surely does not exclude something like a formal Standard or >>> Recommendation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Frans >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-06-25 13:37 GMT+02:00 Scott Serich <sserich@opengeospatial.org>: >>> >>> Your point is well-taken, Alejandro, except that one of these real needs >>> of common users might be to avoid having to pay a prohibitively expensive >>> price to vendor(s) to reinvent elements of the solution stack from scratch >>> (e.g., the “W” in “SDW”). Short-shrifting early discussion of standards, >>> best practices, etc. could create, IMO, an unacceptably high risk of rework >>> later (to weed out those requirements that would require too much >>> reinvention). Not a big deal, but I’d urge that the group not become too >>> draconian in avoiding solution-side concerns during requirements >>> discussions. >>> >>> >>> >>> ===== >>> >>> Scott Serich, Ph.D., JD >>> Director, Interoperability Programs, Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) >>> >>> +1 (703) 283-3432 >>> >>> sserich@opengeospatial.org >>> >>> Skype: scott.serich.ogc >>> >>> The OGC: Making Location Count. >>> >>> www.opengeospatial.org >>> >>> ===== >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es> >>> *Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 6:50 AM >>> *To: *Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> >>> *Cc: *Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, SDW WG Public >>> List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Frans >>> Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> >>> *Subject: *RE: Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document. >>> *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org> >>> *Resent-Date: *Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:51:32 +0000 >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 to Linda's alternative proposal. >>> >>> IMO, a requirement should describe a need. Terms like 'standard' or >>> 'best practice' may imply to have a document or resource, which is not the >>> real need of a common user. We as a group may provide that document in a >>> later phase, but this is a different topic. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alejandro >>> >>> El 25/6/2015 9:18 a. m., "Linda van den Brink" < >>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> escribió: >>> >>> I also like ‘best practice’. But what is perhaps wrong with the term is >>> that it refers to a specific OGC document type. And that is not necessarily >>> what we mean at this stage. >>> >>> >>> >>> An alternative could be ‘a recommended way/method/practice’. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Van:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] >>> *Verzonden:* woensdag 24 juni 2015 18:26 >>> *Aan:* Joshua Lieberman >>> *CC:* Ed Parsons; Alejandro Llaves; SDW WG Public List >>> *Onderwerp:* Re: Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document. >>> >>> >>> >>> But what is wrong with just using 'best practice'? Not only does it say >>> that a *single* method is desired, it also says that single method >>> should be the * best*. >>> >>> >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> Frans >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-06-24 17:47 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman < >>> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>: >>> >>> There is an OGC (or at least OAB) view that specifications describe how >>> to do something in a repeatable way. Standards are agreed and/or mandated >>> specifications. Best practices are applications of specifications that may >>> or may not be standards. Perhaps we can say “there should be a (single) >>> specification for X”. If it’s already a standard, so much the better. >>> >>> >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> A "single mechanism or approach" ? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:29 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: >>> >>> 2015-06-24 17:06 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>: >>> >>> How about "There should be a mechanism for..." that allows us some >>> flexibility as to what the mechanism might be, an existing standard(s), >>> best practice, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Wouldn't 'a mechanism' have the same weakness as 'a standard'? There >>> could be many existing mechanisms for doing something, but we want >>> agreement on the single best mechanism that we recommend the world to use. >>> Remembering you praising the power of figurative speech: we need to clear a >>> path in the jungle. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Frans >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 at 15:59 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Alejandro, >>> >>> >>> >>> The UCR document currently has some requirements that use phasing like >>> "There should be a standard for..." or "There should be standards for...". >>> I recall you had an objection against this way of formulating requirements >>> earlier in an e-mail message, but I can't recall the reason. >>> >>> >>> >>> The issue came up again during today's conference because the same >>> phrasing is used in the proposed UCR requirement (ISSUE-10 >>> <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10>). I liked a point that >>> Andrea made: there could already be multiple standards for doing something. >>> I think we want to avoid a situation where a requirement can be said to be >>> met by multiple competing standards. That does not help the community. So I >>> think we should replace phrases like "There should be a standard for..." >>> with something else. >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to propose to change it to "There should be a best >>> practice for...". That should make it clear that we are looking for a >>> single optimal way of doing something. >>> >>> >>> >>> What do you think about such a general change? I understood that you >>> have an objection against changing 'standard' to 'best practice', but I >>> haven't understood the nature of that objection yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Frans >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Frans Knibbe >>> >>> Geodan >>> >>> President Kennedylaan 1 >>> >>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) >>> >>> >>> >>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 >>> >>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >>> >>> www.geodan.nl >>> >>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ed Parsons >>> Geospatial Technologist, Google >>> >>> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263 >>> www.edparsons.com @edparsons >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Frans Knibbe >>> >>> Geodan >>> >>> President Kennedylaan 1 >>> >>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) >>> >>> >>> >>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 >>> >>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >>> >>> www.geodan.nl >>> >>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ed Parsons >>> Geospatial Technologist, Google >>> >>> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263 >>> www.edparsons.com @edparsons >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Frans Knibbe >>> >>> Geodan >>> >>> President Kennedylaan 1 >>> >>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) >>> >>> >>> >>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 >>> >>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >>> >>> www.geodan.nl >>> >>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Frans Knibbe >>> >>> Geodan >>> >>> President Kennedylaan 1 >>> >>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) >>> >>> >>> >>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 >>> >>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >>> >>> www.geodan.nl >>> >>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ed Parsons >>> Geospatial Technologist, Google >>> >>> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263 >>> www.edparsons.com @edparsons >>> ------------------------------ >>> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is >>> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this >>> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt >>> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in >>> an electronic records management system. >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Frans Knibbe >> Geodan >> President Kennedylaan 1 >> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) >> >> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 >> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >> www.geodan.nl >> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >> >> -- Frans Knibbe Geodan President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 13:02:07 UTC