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>