- From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 11:25:09 +0200
- To: "'Ghislain Atemezing'" <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: "'Laufer'" <laufer@globo.com>, "'Bernadette Farias Loscio'" <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "'Carlos Iglesias'" <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>, "'DWBP Public List'" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Ghislain,
>
> Hummm...Not sure how useful could be the "recommended" fields w.r.t
> the
> generic "optional field" . I mean, I assume *all* the the fields
> suggested are "recommended" ones...And include "mandatory" fields.
> Well,
> maybe I don't understand your point here.
>
There is a definition in the DCAT-AP what those terms mean:
- Mandatory property: a receiver MUST be able to process the information for that property; a sender MUST provide the information for that property.
- Recommended property: a receiver MUST be able to process the information for that property; a sender SHOULD provide the information for that property if it is available.
- Optional property: a receiver MUST be able to process the information for that property; a sender MAY provide the information for that property but is not obliged to do so.
MUST, SHOULD and MAY as in RFC2119.
Of course, DCAT-AP looks at both sides of the exchange, publisher/sender and re-user/receiver, while DWBP only provides advice to the publisher, so for DWBP it may be enough to propose a recommended set ("please provide if at all possible") and leave all the rest optional.
Makx.
Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 09:25:44 UTC