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

Re: "Should" sanity check

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:40:18 -0400
Cc: "'Rinke Hoekstra'" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <036BBB97-AC9D-4343-A4B4-D342178C315E@gmail.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Hi Boris,

The standard way to define these in W3C TRs is to cite the rfc. Here  
are examples from  some W3C specs [1][2]. Saying anything more or less  
won't help, and might hurt.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20070307/#s_conformance
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#conformance


On May 29, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Boris Motik wrote:

> I took the liberty to update the document along these lines: once we  
> see the text, we might actually have a better idea of how good
> the resolution works. Also, I have added a new section 1.1 which  
> describe the meaning of "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT". Here is the
> diff:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=8197&oldid=8168
> Section 1.1, I hope, also addresses Peter's comment that we need to  
> specify which part of the document is normative and which is
> not. (The solution is, roughly speaking, to make the whole document  
> normative, apart from the intuitive description of the
> semantics.)
> Please let me know should you have some comments/problems regarding  
> my formulation in Section 1.1 and/or the usage of "SHOULD" and
> "should".
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:40:56 UTC

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