-
Hi @tombartley, thank you for this. I’m glad you support the general premise, and I agree aspects like Applications (Uses) and Observable elements are important. The goal of the workshop on the 11th is to test/challenge these headings with the community so Benefits may fall out. As I mentioned in the previous post, I’ve (shamelessly) taken the clause structure from the manufacturing standard and adapted the headings to suit.
As the scope relates to an overview and principles standard (like ISO 19650-1) it behaves more like a guide to inform further standardization as opposed to a code of practice or a specification; meaning that a clause on benefits *could* work as guidance can include both recommendations as well as statements of fact. However, just as Jeff Goldblum says in Jurassic Park:
Quote
“Your scientists standards authors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
I think it’ll depend as to whether the benefits we can identify relate specifically to the applications, or are more generic benefits.
Fully agree that the standard needs to formalize terminology. This has been a strong theme from the CDBB team too.