Reviewing the SISO Style Guide recently brought up some questions for me regarding the naming of the GRIM. For background, here's an excerpt from the SISO Style Guide regarding document titles:
"If the product is developed under an approved Product Nomination (PN) or Terms of Reference (TOR), then
the title shall be exactly as specified under the overarching terms. Titles of other documents shall reflect the
scope of the product in as few words as possible. All titles shall be followed by one of the following:
• "Standard [for]" when the standard specifies mandatory requirements.
•"Guide [for]" when the standard furnishes information."
The first thing I noticed was that technically the GRIM does not match the last requirement. The title of the current draft of the GRIM is "Guidance, Rationale, and Interoperability Manual". I believe the GRIM is technically a standard and not a guide (it contains shall statements), so the title should begin with "Standard for" according to the Style Guide.
However the Guide also says that the title shall be exactly as specified by the PN. So I looked at our PN to verify the title we are using is correct. It is not. The PN says that the title of the GRIM is "Guidance, Rationale, and Interoperability Modalities". This is also the title of the RPR 1.0 GRIM. Rene did some research and found that sometime between RPR 2d4 and RPR 2d7 the title was changed. I talked to Doug Wood about this, and his recollection was that the group simply decided that they preferred "Manual" to "Modalities".
So we must make a decision about what to title this document. I see three options:
- Change the name back to "Modalities".
Benefits: This is the easiest course of action. I can simply change the title in the current version of the GRIM.
Downsides: During the meeting yesterday everyone seemed to prefer Manual. It's clearer, less obtuse. Clearly at one point the previous drafting group also had the same opinion.
- Update the PN to match the current GRIM and use "Manual".
Benefits: Clearer. Seems to be generally preferred.
Downsides: Would require changing the PN. I am not sure how difficult this is.
- Come up with a new title that follows the guidelines set by the Style Guide. The new title would begin with "Standard for".
Benefits: This would best match the requirements of the SISO Style Guide.
Downsides: We would need to agree on a new name. PN would still need to be revised. Worst of all, this would eliminate the acronym GRIM, which at this point it is widely recognized in the community.
I am ok with either option 1 or option 2, but I would argue against option 3. The term GRIM is too entrenched in our community. This would only cause confusion.
What does everyone else think?
To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-RPR list, click the following link: