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

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>