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

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

From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:47:36 -0400
Cc: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <177F4CEB-C202-4F2C-8F11-A255123CB64C@tumblingwalls.com>
To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.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 <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:
> 2015-06-24 17:06 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
> www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl/>
> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
> 
> -- 
> Ed Parsons
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
> 
> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263 <tel:%2B44%20%280%297825%20382263>
> www.edparsons.com <http://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 <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
> www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl/>
> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
> 
> -- 
> Ed Parsons
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
> 
> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
> www.edparsons.com <http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons
> 


Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 15:49:13 UTC

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