- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:18:04 +0200
- To: Scott Serich <sserich@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz42ZZg152Q-RYavnOwxpTEt-Q9veONDdUz0KiOXp042Rpg@mail.gmail.com>
Well. considering the comments so far I think 'recommended way' is a good candidate. It is clearly singular, and to my knowledge it is not a term that has already been loaded with extra meaning somewhere (and, for the sake of posterit, let's not do that ourselves :-)). Also, 'recommended way' in my mind surely does not exclude something like a formal Standard or Recommendation. Regards, Frans 2015-06-25 13:37 GMT+02:00 Scott Serich <sserich@opengeospatial.org>: > Your point is well-taken, Alejandro, except that one of these real needs > of common users might be to avoid having to pay a prohibitively expensive > price to vendor(s) to reinvent elements of the solution stack from scratch > (e.g., the “W” in “SDW”). Short-shrifting early discussion of standards, > best practices, etc. could create, IMO, an unacceptably high risk of rework > later (to weed out those requirements that would require too much > reinvention). Not a big deal, but I’d urge that the group not become too > draconian in avoiding solution-side concerns during requirements > discussions. > > ===== > Scott Serich, Ph.D., JD > Director, Interoperability Programs, Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) > +1 (703) 283-3432 > sserich@opengeospatial.org > Skype: scott.serich.ogc > The OGC: Making Location Count. > www.opengeospatial.org > ===== > > From: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es> > Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 6:50 AM > To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> > Cc: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, SDW WG Public List < > public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Frans Knibbe < > frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> > Subject: RE: Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document. > Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:51:32 +0000 > > +1 to Linda's alternative proposal. > > IMO, a requirement should describe a need. Terms like 'standard' or 'best > practice' may imply to have a document or resource, which is not the real > need of a common user. We as a group may provide that document in a later > phase, but this is a different topic. > > Regards, > Alejandro > El 25/6/2015 9:18 a. m., "Linda van den Brink" <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> > escribió: > >> 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 >> <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> >> >> >> > -- 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>
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 12:18:33 UTC