- From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:30:54 +0000
- To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADtUq_35LUi37PRe4jwzAryKFRWU728kAYOFbuRm1NWi05WyTA@mail.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> > >
Received on Friday, 10 July 2015 11:31:34 UTC