W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Use of the word "should" in OWL Rec

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:15:02 +0100
Message-ID: <40F6C9A6.3050805@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: bernauer@big.tuwien.ac.at
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Martin Bernauer wrote:

> 
> In addition to the possibly inappropriate use of the word SHOULD in 
> Section 3.1.2.1.1 owl:allValuesFrom (cf. the original posting), I hit 
> another passage in Section 4.1.1 rdfs:subPropertyOf 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#subPropertyOf-def):
> 
> "[..] Formally this means that if P1 is a subproperty of P2, then the 
> property extension of P1 (a set of pairs) SHOULD be a subset of the 
> property extension of P2 (also a set of pairs)."
> 
> Comparing this with the semantics in 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-absyn/direct.html#3.3, which states that ER(p1) 
> ⊆ ER(p2), the use of SHOULD here again seems misleading.
> 
> Could someone be so kind and comment on why SHOULD is appropriate in 
> those sections?
> 
> Thanks!
> Martin
> 


To me "SHOULD" in capitals would have been a mistake.

The OWL Ref is intended as an informative document, and hence should not 
be making any use of the keywords. Hence, any use of 'should' in OWL Ref 
should be read just as 'should' not with RFC 2119 semantics. However a 
capitalized SHOULD is so indicative of 2119 that it was good that it was 
not used. Your 'quote' is in fact a misquote, since what you wrote as 
'SHOULD' is in fact 'should'.

(I don't find the wording here brilliant, but look at a dictionary 
rather than RFC 2119)

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 14:15:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC