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

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

From: Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:51:57 +1000
Message-Id: <0E54C683-64AE-4B89-99E4-0C48A69B2DB6@acm.org>
Cc: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Of course, a "recommendation  " is a standard in W3C speak, so we have the same problem again. How about "advice" ?  That surely is what we are being asked for. It  says nothing about how many ways there are already for doing whatever it is and seems to imply that our advice would be the " best" advice!

so... "There should be advice on ....."?
Kerry



> On 25 Jun 2015, at 5:18 pm, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
> 
> I also like ‘best practice’. But what is perhaps wrong with the term is that it refers to a specific OGC document type. And that is not necessarily what we mean at this stage.
>  
> An alternative could be ‘a recommended way/method/practice’.
>  
> Van: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] 
> Verzonden: woensdag 24 juni 2015 18:26
> Aan: Joshua Lieberman
> CC: Ed Parsons; Alejandro Llaves; SDW WG Public List
> Onderwerp: 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). 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
>  
> --
> 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
>  
> --
> 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
>  

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 11:16:52 UTC

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