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

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.

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