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

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 ³W² in ³SDW²). 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 I¹d 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 Œbest practice¹. 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 Œa recommended way/method/practice¹.
>  
> 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 ³there should be a (single)
> specification for X². If it¹s 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 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
>>>>> 
>>>>> E 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
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
> www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl>
> 
> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
> 
>