Re: [tgf] RE: Issue 13 (General)- Technology Management Framework -need to include Core Standards Set? - open

[Andy Hopkirk <andy.hopkirk@gmail.com>]

hi - sorry been out of the loop recently and not able to contribute... re: lists of standards... 
 
I'm with Peter below regarding the utility of lists - they will be at best a statement of the 'current most used/ useful' on the date of publication and out of date the next day. Remembering the long tail distribution in the CST survey outcome, you have to ask where would the cut off be applied? who would stand behind the decision? who would be responsible for regular/ irrelgular update cycles etc. etc.  
 
Sounds like 'hostage to fortune'-land for me; better surely to simply recognise that lists of standards are (i) useful - so you should [not 'must' to be compliant] have one to help your community get started (ii) time sensitive - because interop and IT standards in general are rapidly evolving and (iii) the inter-relation between standards in all their varieties with local standards policy(ies) and local procurement legalities are too various for this Framework to be definitive about this matter in all possible places. 
 
Yes, to be helpful, in supplementary material we could point to / report sets of standards that are commonly in use e.g. like these 'here', 'there', 'elsewhere' [fill in the 'best' most recent examples] and that a comprehensive survey in 2010 reported 'this distribution of usage' worldwide [link to the CST survey result].
 
The gathering and maintenance of the list of the 'top 20 % of standards in use by 80% of the Framework users' would certainly be a useful piece of intelligence to maintain - if someone will pay for the gathering and analysis effort and subsequent reselling costs :-) 
 
Hope this is useful,
 
Andy

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz> wrote:

Yep, I think giving examples of profiles of standard X or Y would offer more value, but they are just examples, since there are country or industry specific

 contexts for them in most cases so they may not suit all situations.

 

Cheers

Colin

From: Greenaway Nigel [mailto:Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2011 3:43 a.m.
To: peter@peterfbrown.com; TGF TC List
Subject: [tgf] RE: Issue 13 (General)- Technology Management Framework - need to include Core Standards Set? - open

 

I'm happy that we address this aspect later.
WRT lists of standards, perhaps we could take Peter's stance but provide one or more profiles of those that eork together. Ths could ultimately lead to a reasonanly finite set which would assist product suppliers across multiple territories and aid interoperability and reuse.

Regards

Nig

-----Original Message-----
From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@peterfbrown.com>
To: "Greenaway Nigel" <Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com>; "'TGF TC List '" <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: 28/02/11 19:22
Subject: Issue 13 (General)- Technology Management Framework - need to include Core Standards Set? - open

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.

 

====
CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====