W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: "Should" sanity check

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:16:20 +0200
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1EA92F6D-5AE6-44B5-8877-15CE4C73BBF4@uva.nl>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>


I agree uppercase SHOULDs are kinda ugly. Perhaps we could do  
something with CSS and JavaScript so that we could switch some kind of  
visual feedback on the normative structure on and off? For instance,  
use a script to enable the CSS style "text-transform: uppercase;" or  
something that turns all the MUSTs red, the SHOULDs blue and the MAYs  

... but maybe that's too much effort for too little gain?


On 28 mei 2008, at 21:15, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
> I just went though all the documents and have checked the usage of  
> "should" in them. I have corrected the usage in several places;
> here are the diffs:
> Semantics:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Semantics&diff=8177&oldid=7488
> RDF mapping:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=8172&oldid=8170
> XML syntax:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=XML_Serialization&diff=8176&oldid=794
> Profiles:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=8173&oldid=7913
> Structural specification:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=8168&oldid=8155
> After this clean-up, only the structural specification contains  
> occurrences of "should" in the text (profiles contain "should" in
> reviewers' comments, but not in the text). All usages of "should" in  
> the structural spec are now in the sense "should do unless
> there is some really good reason not to".
> For the moment, I left all the letters in lower case. I did this  
> because of two reasons:
> - I really didn't understand what the outcome of the discussion at  
> the teleconf was.
> - Writing "SHOULD" instead of "should" in places such as examples  
> seemed to me really ugly.
> I tried to reformulate the examples in a way that doesn't use  
> should; however, the text then becomes really weird.
> If the general consensus is that we should use "SHOULD" in the  
> normative part of the document, then I propose to use lowercase
> "should" in places that are not normative, such as examples. In all  
> cases, I will use "should" and "SHOULD" in the same sense; it is
> just that using the stressed "SHOULD" in nonnormative parts of the  
> document such as examples seems quite strange to me.
> Regards,
> 	Boris

Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 07:16:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC