- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:59:03 +0200
- To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz42WVZbTGtnHd9eXZ8uviH17zDttqFLO=v85heHgXF2gsQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 14:59:31 UTC