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: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:33:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz425iy9Ne-UK_vGjKQk_-b+FvK9wDN1V1fTbEmu08TaByQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi Alejandro,

I have just made the changes, I added the note and changed 'standard' to
'recommended way' in some requirements.

I also took the liberty of making an additional related change: Some
general requirements. like the requirement for 3D support, are worded
like *"Standards
for spatial data on the Web should be applicable to three-dimensional data.*"
To avoid the idea that this requirement only applies to Offcial Standards,
I have changed the wording to *"Standards or recommendations for spatial
data on the Web should be applicable to three-dimensional data.*". I hope
you agree on that additional change.

Greetings,
Frans


2015-08-05 9:52 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>:

> 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>
>>
>>


-- 
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 Wednesday, 5 August 2015 10:34:27 UTC

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