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

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

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:18:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz42ZZg152Q-RYavnOwxpTEt-Q9veONDdUz0KiOXp042Rpg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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

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