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

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

From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:22:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHrFjck+XCQacFZ6wjziEwo=aZqke9b+xdjs9AtP3=tnH-VKmw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
+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

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