Re: What is normative?

Dear all,

I'd like to propose the removal of the RFC keywords from the DWBP document.

Cheers,
Bernadette

2015-05-18 18:17 GMT-03:00 Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>:

> +1 Annette!
>
> 2015-05-18 18:07 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>:
>
> Take a look at how WCAG does it [1]. They don’t use RFC2119 keywords.
>> Instead, they add “(Level A)”, “(Level AA)”, etc.  Where terms like “must”
>> and “should” arise in the text, they are treated as they are used in plain
>> English. That obviates the awkwardness of trying to make keywords that were
>> developed for specifying a technology work for best practices documents. In
>> my view, using RFC2119 keywords makes our documents appear to be imposing
>> actual requirements, which I think is potentially confusing for readers. It
>> suggests that failure to follow a given BP will prevent users from being
>> able to access the data. The nice thing about going without the keywords is
>> that it means people can claim a lower level of conformance and still feel
>> good, whereas people who meet the higher standard can claim that and feel
>> even better. We wouldn't need to compromise on what we expect from people,
>> and we could provide some stretch goals.
>>
>> One particular section of that RFC particularly bothers me in considering
>> its use for best practices. It’s the following:
>>
>> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>>
>>    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
>>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>>    on implementors where the method is not required for
>>    interoperability. [2]
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>>
>> --
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>> 510-495-2935
>>
>> On May 18, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Joao Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Annette,
>>
>> That just changes the use of the normative statements a bit.
>>
>> I proposed to interpret the normative statements in the following way: if
>> you claim conformance, you MUST, ...
>>
>> What you are proposing sounds like: if you claim conformance to level X,
>> you MUST, ...
>>
>> regards,
>> João Paulo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We’ve had an idea at various times to assign a rating system, something
>>> like the five stars but different enough to avoid confusion. I still think
>>> that’s the best way to deal with this issue. It enables a publisher of data
>>> to claim a concrete level of compliance, much like the WCAG.
>>> -Annette
>>> --
>>> Annette Greiner
>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>> 510-495-2935
>>>
>>> On May 18, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The issue is open in tracker so I'm taking it as open - but if we're
>>> taking them out (and I think we are too) then some of the intro matter and
>>> the template need updating.
>>> >
>>> > Phil
>>> >
>>> > On 18/05/2015 16:03, yaso@nic.br wrote:
>>> >> I thought we had an agreement on this:
>>> >>
>>> >> "An alternative would be not to include any RFC2119 keywords at all"
>>> >>
>>> >> I ran trough the logs and couldn't find nothing against not using the
>>> >> RFC2119 keywords at the document. Furthermore, we talked at the F2F
>>> >> about the translation to Portuguese problem with the keywords. There
>>> was
>>> >> another decision on that?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> yaso
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 05/18/2015 11:53 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
>>> >>> Dear all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The BP editors have been working hard and have made a number of what
>>> I
>>> >>> think are big steps forward with the doc.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But Issue-146 remains unresolved: what is normative in a BP?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Take our old favourite first BP
>>> >>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideMetadata that says:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Metadata MUST be provided for both human users and computer
>>> applications
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I doubt anyone here will disagree with this statement, but is it
>>> right
>>> >>> to make this the normative part of the BP? And, if so, are we right
>>> to
>>> >>> use the RFC2119 MUST?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Take a less clear cut example:
>>> >>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MultipleFormats that says:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Data SHOULD be available in multiple data formats.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Really?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> SHOULD is "comply or explain" - i.e. you'd better have a very good
>>> >>> reason not to provide data in multiple formats so I might argue one
>>> day
>>> >>> that this should be a MAY. What does MAY mean? From the infamous
>>> RFC2119:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
>>> >>>    truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item
>>> because a
>>> >>>    particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels
>>> that
>>> >>>    it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same
>>> item."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (I've omitted the rest of the definition but this is the essence of
>>> it).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Suppose the WG agrees and this BP now becomes:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Data MAY be available in multiple data formats."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Which doesn't really convey in a single sentence what we mean. We
>>> might
>>> >>> end up with
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Publishers are encouraged to make data available in multiple formats
>>> >>> (OPTIONAL)"
>>> >>>
>>> >>> i.e. re-word the normative line to fit in with the definition of the
>>> >>> relevant RFC2119 keyword.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> An alternative would be not to include any RFC2119 keywords at all.
>>> I'm
>>> >>> easy either way - I can see arguments for and against including these
>>> >>> keywords - but it remains an open issue that I think we owe it to the
>>> >>> editors to decide what to do.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Phil.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Phil Archer
>>> > W3C Data Activity Lead
>>> > http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>> >
>>> > http://philarcher.org
>>> > +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> > @philarcher1
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------