W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document.

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:01:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz42OOnTDmZhMpcbbzrXqRvkbW18hH1Oa5BJdxEOm_09aKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC