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

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

From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:39:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHrFjcmGriktBvFoCWU7C6-DqB294Kc5ds6_MK710swJ32KvMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Cc: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 15:40:14 UTC

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