- From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:22:55 +0000
- To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, 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>
- Message-ID: <CAHrFjck+XCQacFZ6wjziEwo=aZqke9b+xdjs9AtP3=tnH-VKmw@mail.gmail.com>
+1 to "recommended way" On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 13:18 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > 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> > > -- Ed Parsons Geospatial Technologist, Google Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263 www.edparsons.com @edparsons
Received on Friday, 26 June 2015 08:23:36 UTC