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

Ok, I also prefer recommended way! And +1 for the explanatory note.

Best,
Alejandro
El 4/8/2015 3:01 p. m., "Frans Knibbe" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> escribió:

> 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>
>
>