Topic: Standard Quality versus Quantity

There is a constant tension in development between doing less, but doing it well, verses doing more with less attention to detail. As OGC standards are addressing start addressing more complex issues, and and move toward the mass market, the OGC should put greater funding priorities on addressing quality over quantity.

To date, the funding structures to build OGC testbeds have been very successful, but only address the first part of the standards development life-cycle. The OGC, and OGC sponsors should work out how to re-prioritise funding such that funding structures ensure that a standard is developed right through to the development of the artifacts associated with quality.

This means:

Quality technical writing and review; Examples to support implement-ability; Consistent, concise one page marketing overviews; Implementations; Comprehensive test suites which cover all edge conditions.

-- CameronShorter - 01 Jul 2013

Improve documentation to be clear, concise and consistent include example codes and publish using, for example HTML 5, PDF Digital Object Identifiers.

See OldOgcPoliciesAndProcedures#SpecFormat, OldDocumentationKnowledgeManagement, OldInnovationHarmonization, OldOgcPoliciesAndProcedures#SpecComplexity, OldOgcPoliciesAndProcedures#VotingRules

Relations to other topics

Related to TopicWebsite, TopicFormalGuidance, TopicSpecDocComplexity

Discussion

Involve experts by flexible funding of small tasks/reviews.

Often, requests are made on the forums (SWG, DWG) to ask for help on items or to review certain documents. Although often interesting, it is difficult to schedule any effort for this without any funding, if not directly beneficial for the company itself. Probably less of an issue for universities and big companies, but it can make a difference for the involvement of smaller companies.

SESAR JU, the organization arranging research for the Single European Sky initiative, works with a set of registered experts that may be asked to review documents in their domain for a daily fee. This may be useful to ensure input from experts that may find it difficult to get free time from their company to do such reviews.

--Frank Suykens

Ideas Leadership Group Response: We agree about the need for this type of review and will take this under consideration for some situations, given sensitivity to the fact that OGC's process is based on voluntary consensus standards advancment

On behalf of Paula McLeod:

OGC standards development process is frequently influenced by commercial or academic interests, thus diluting the quality of the output or time to market. OGC process could be more accessible to community outside OGC. Allow flexibility to choose to ask for public comment at different points in the process, to improve the quality of the standards developed. Process is an issue that needs more maturity to ensure standards are mature enough to be referenced. There is a trade off in terms of time to produce more mature standards since the process takes more time (like dejure standards).

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 2013

Ideas Leadership Group Response: Standards Working Groups have a great deal of latitude when it comes to exposing working papers to other consortia or the public and one of the recommendations in Topic: Improve Coordination.

On behalf of Paula McLeod;

Specs should be revised by a technical spec reviewer at every publication milestone to ensure the quality of the document. It is not all people that know the art of writing good specs. Specifications should be available as html pages in order to be more accessible, open and usable.

-- TrevorTaylor - 15 Aug 2013

Ideas Leadership Group Response: We agree. Perhaps quality could be improved by combining the SESAR JU technical review methodology with a document editor who edits for form, grammar, and completeness. Ideally an editor, who could do both, will be added to staff, but that combination is going to be difficult to find.

 
Topic revision: r8 - 31 Oct 2013, TrevorTaylor
 

This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding OGC Public Wiki? Send feedback