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

+1 to “recommended way”

I am happy that this terminology is sufficiently different to w3c “Recommendation”, and we can always put a note in the document to make that clear

Regards,
Rachel

From: Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com]
Sent: 26 June 2015 09:23
To: Frans Knibbe; Scott Serich
Cc: Alejandro Llaves; Linda van den Brink; Joshua Lieberman; SDW WG Public List
Subject: Re: Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document.

+1 to "recommended way"

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 13:18 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20%28703%29%20283-3432>
sserich@opengeospatial.org<mailto:sserich@opengeospatial.org>
Skype: scott.serich.ogc
The OGC: Making Location Count.
www.opengeospatial.org<http://www.opengeospatial.org>
=====

From: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es<mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es>>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 6:50 AM
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>>
Cc: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com<mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com<mailto:eparsons@google.com>>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>>
Subject: RE: Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document.
Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto:eparsons@google.com>> wrote:


A "single mechanism or approach" ?

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:29 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:
2015-06-24 17:06 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl/>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>

--

Ed Parsons
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263<tel:%2B44%20%280%297825%20382263>
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons



--
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl/>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>

--

Ed Parsons
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263<tel:%2B44%20%280%297825%20382263>
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons




--
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://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<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>

--

Ed Parsons
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com> @edparsons

________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________