Re: Question about SHOULD in MT

On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 18:35, pat hayes wrote:
> 
> >I'm not comfortable with the SHOULD in
> >
> >"A 'datatype-aware' RDF engine SHOULD be competent to recognize at 
> >least the rdfs:XMLLiteral datatype and the set of all the XML
> >Schema primitive datatypes."
> >
> >insofar as XML Schema datatypes are concerned.
> >
> >I think the SHOULD should only be limited to rdfs:XMLLiteral.
> >
> >I don't believe this is an editorial issue. I don't believe that the
> >WG has agreed that this expectation should be placed on datatype
> >savvy applications.
> >
> >I propose the following rewording:
> >
> >"A 'datatype-aware' RDF engine SHOULD be competent to recognize at 
> >least the rdfs:XMLLiteral datatype. It MAY, and typically will,
> >recognize other datatypes,
> >such as the XML Schema built-in simple datatypes."
> 
> On reflection, I don't think we should shilly-shally with 'typically' 
> when using this strict language, so Ive simplified this to:
> 
> A 'datatype-aware' RDF engine SHOULD be competent to recognize at 
> least the built-in rdf:XMLLiteral datatype. It MAY also recognize the 
> set of all the XML Schema built-in datatypes.
> 
> 
> OK??

no; 'RDF engine' seems completely out of place.
Please strike all mentions of it.

I still owe review of this stuff, but that's the
short of it.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/