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

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

From: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 13:06:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CABTzy2RaR36waNGm+TMZjnJoEg4yHQO=_N6t58sQuEa35x2jOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Sure!

Alejandro

On 5 August 2015 at 12:33, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> 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>
>
>


-- 
Alejandro Llaves

Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)

Artificial Intelligence Department

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Avda. Montepríncipe s/n

Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain


http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves


allaves@fi.upm.es
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 11:06:44 UTC

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