Issue 13 (General)- Technology Management Framework

Nig:

I’m taking your different points as separate issues.

John has already commented:

“It has always been my intention to address this point once we have got the Primer out of the way. I would like to set up a sub-committee to produce the core set of standards and then we can issue them as a CN or possible look for some other body to take them on and maintain them. And in the same vein I want to do some work on common data standards but again that’s for later. So can I propose we defer anything further on these aspects for now?”

My own view (as TC member, not as an editor): I agree that we should defer for now. I’m not convinced (any more, although I’m probably an apostate on this) of the value of lists of core standards – our emphasis ought to be shifted towards lists of core functional issues that standards ought to address. Standards may, do, evolve in light of technological change, but core functional requirements (defined in the broadest sense) tend to persist more and are less prone to updating and currency problems.

Other comments?

Peter

From: Greenaway Nigel [mailto:Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Monday, 28 February, 2011 09:06
To: TGF TC List
Subject: [tgf] New Issue - General/Conceptual - Technology Management Framework

There are some items that do not have a home indicated for them in the document. They probably belong in Part III(d). and will probably be separate committee Notes but probably need to be discussed by the group (perhaps initially on the call later this week?).as

The areas that come to my mind (there may be more) are:

1. Core Standards Set. One of the CSTransform papers identifies a long tail of standards when various Ifs are surveyed. It would seem sensible for us to at least have a stab at defining the core set. Possibly, this could be done alongside and take cognisance of the UK Standards survey that is currently being undertaken.

tgf message