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: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:58:06 +0100
Message-ID: <40FC27CE.5070207@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Daniel Barclay wrote:

> 
> Martin Bernauer wrote:
> 
>> ...
>>
>>> ... Your 'quote' is in fact a misquote, since what you wrote as 
>>> 'SHOULD' is in fact 'should'.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...  I don't see my
>> quotation as a misquote, I just used it to emphasize what is the most 
>> relevant part of the quote.
> 
> 
> If you emphasize something in a quotation, you should indicate that
> the emphasis is from you (e.g., "[emphasis mine]" or
> "[emphasis added]").
> 
> (Alternatively, use a form of emphasis that isn't used anywhere in
> the original (so it's obvious that it's from your quoting of the
> original text and not actually from the original text).  For example,
> using the surrounding-asterisks style ("... whatever *should* be ...")
> when the original doesn't ever use that style makes it fairly clear
> that it's your emphasis and not the original's.))
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 

In Martin's defence the original does not use 'SHOULD' anywhere, the 
problem is that 'SHOULD' is conventionalized by RFC 2119, and I read 
Martin's quotation in light of that convention

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 15:58:43 UTC

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