Release: BOMOS-Verdieping

Logius-standaarden · Nov 5, 2024 · c910978 · c910978
1 parent 50d85d5
commit c910978
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 4 changed files with 6 additions and 8 deletions.
diff --git a/bomos/verdieping/en/3.0.1/BOMOS-Substantiation.pdf b/bomos/verdieping/en/3.0.1/BOMOS-Substantiation.pdf
diff --git a/bomos/verdieping/en/3.0.1/index.html b/bomos/verdieping/en/3.0.1/index.html
@@ -813,7 +813,7 @@
   ]
 }</script>
 <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://gitdocumentatie.logius.nl/publicatie/respec/style/base.css"></head>
- <body class="h-entry informative toc-inline"><div class="head">
+ <body class="h-entry informative"><div class="head">
     <a class="logo" href="https://www.logius.nl/standaarden"><img alt="Logius" height="77" id="Logius" src="https://gitdocumentatie.logius.nl/publicatie/respec/style/logos/figure-logius.svg" width="44">
   </a> <h1 id="title" class="title">BOMOS: Substantiation 3.0.1</h1>
 
@@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ <h2>
 <p>The quality model as presented here is not the complete quality model. The complete quality model goes one level deeper with quality concepts, as well as providing suggestions for conducting the measurements, right through to a process model for the use of the quality model, so it can be deployed as an instrument. The complete quality model (and instrument) are part of the thesis <cite><a data-matched-text="[[[folmer2012]]]" href="https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6064223/thesis_E_Folmer.pdf">Quality of Semantic Standards</a></cite>.</p>
 <figure id="qualitymodel">
 
-<pre><code class="mermaid hljs" aria-busy="false">graph TD;
+<pre><code class="mermaid hljs" aria-busy="false" data-processed="true">graph TD;
     quality(Quality model for semantic standard);
     product(A. Product quality);
     process(B. Process quality);
@@ -2847,8 +2847,7 @@ <h2>
 <p>A week of working groups, each with on average 15 participants from both waste processing organisations and suppliers, in which the standards were individually discussed, was followed by two further weeks of elaboration by an external supervisor and two more weeks of review period for the working group, before the standard was delivered to the steering committee. Counting from the moment at which the working group was established, a standard was put in place within two months.</p>
 <p>There is a risk that this accelerated process will be to the detriment of quality: a poor standard could cause huge problems in the future. The quality of the standard relates strongly to the participants in the pressure cooker. One remarkable feature is that working group members tend to establish contacts on the spot within their own organisation, as a means of gathering additional information. This situation can in and of itself be an Achilles heel: if one working group member has prepared insufficiently for his task and for example the essential information is not available on the spot, that information cannot be included in the pressure cooker. As such, the quality of and preparations by the working group members are of vital importance.</p>
 <p>An important first yardstick is the review process; if it emerges during the review process that many fundamental choices need to be rediscussed, and those choices lead to changes to the intended standard, this is not a positive indicator for the quality of the standard under review. It should however be remembered that the first version of a standard is never perfect. New insights are always discovered during implementations, and errors regularly emerge whether the pressure cooker method is used or not. At the end of the day, a perfect standard is not the objective: instead, a workable standard that helps solve problems.</p>
-<p>Learning points:
-Important learning points are:</p>
+<p>Important learning points are:</p>
 <ul>
 <li>A pressure cooker is an excellent tool for efficiently developing a standard. 
 The quality still has to be proven, but there is a clear impression that the quality of the working group is decisive 

diff --git a/bomos/verdieping/en/BOMOS-Substantiation.pdf b/bomos/verdieping/en/BOMOS-Substantiation.pdf
diff --git a/bomos/verdieping/en/index.html b/bomos/verdieping/en/index.html
@@ -813,7 +813,7 @@
   ]
 }</script>
 <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://gitdocumentatie.logius.nl/publicatie/respec/style/base.css"></head>
- <body class="h-entry informative toc-inline"><div class="head">
+ <body class="h-entry informative"><div class="head">
     <a class="logo" href="https://www.logius.nl/standaarden"><img alt="Logius" height="77" id="Logius" src="https://gitdocumentatie.logius.nl/publicatie/respec/style/logos/figure-logius.svg" width="44">
   </a> <h1 id="title" class="title">BOMOS: Substantiation 3.0.1</h1>
 
@@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ <h2>
 <p>The quality model as presented here is not the complete quality model. The complete quality model goes one level deeper with quality concepts, as well as providing suggestions for conducting the measurements, right through to a process model for the use of the quality model, so it can be deployed as an instrument. The complete quality model (and instrument) are part of the thesis <cite><a data-matched-text="[[[folmer2012]]]" href="https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6064223/thesis_E_Folmer.pdf">Quality of Semantic Standards</a></cite>.</p>
 <figure id="qualitymodel">
 
-<pre><code class="mermaid hljs" aria-busy="false">graph TD;
+<pre><code class="mermaid hljs" aria-busy="false" data-processed="true">graph TD;
     quality(Quality model for semantic standard);
     product(A. Product quality);
     process(B. Process quality);
@@ -2847,8 +2847,7 @@ <h2>
 <p>A week of working groups, each with on average 15 participants from both waste processing organisations and suppliers, in which the standards were individually discussed, was followed by two further weeks of elaboration by an external supervisor and two more weeks of review period for the working group, before the standard was delivered to the steering committee. Counting from the moment at which the working group was established, a standard was put in place within two months.</p>
 <p>There is a risk that this accelerated process will be to the detriment of quality: a poor standard could cause huge problems in the future. The quality of the standard relates strongly to the participants in the pressure cooker. One remarkable feature is that working group members tend to establish contacts on the spot within their own organisation, as a means of gathering additional information. This situation can in and of itself be an Achilles heel: if one working group member has prepared insufficiently for his task and for example the essential information is not available on the spot, that information cannot be included in the pressure cooker. As such, the quality of and preparations by the working group members are of vital importance.</p>
 <p>An important first yardstick is the review process; if it emerges during the review process that many fundamental choices need to be rediscussed, and those choices lead to changes to the intended standard, this is not a positive indicator for the quality of the standard under review. It should however be remembered that the first version of a standard is never perfect. New insights are always discovered during implementations, and errors regularly emerge whether the pressure cooker method is used or not. At the end of the day, a perfect standard is not the objective: instead, a workable standard that helps solve problems.</p>
-<p>Learning points:
-Important learning points are:</p>
+<p>Important learning points are:</p>
 <ul>
 <li>A pressure cooker is an excellent tool for efficiently developing a standard. 
 The quality still has to be proven, but there is a clear impression that the quality of the working group is decisive