W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: BP - use of RFC2119

From: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:26:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CABP9CAFhX12GJV2dYwDOcMZL8yxzwr6LvXzDpOEcyEP2wwi8kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
+1. It should be possible to associate these keywords to some kind of
check-list test, that would indeed be hard to do when humans are involved
as object of the test :)


On 22 January 2015 at 00:12, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
> A comment about the use of SHOULD, MUST, etc.
> It comes from my reading of the section on vocabularies
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVocabularies
> but it may be in many more places in the vocabularies...
> I am wondering whether we over-use RFC2119, or don't use it with the
> correct sentences. Our injunctions read sometimes weird, at least to me.
> For example:
> "Humans SHOULD be able to understand the vocabulary." and "Any person who
> wants to use or reuse a vocabulary SHOULD be able to do so."
> -> I cannot but smile at the idea our document specifies RFC2119
> requirements on humans ;-)
> To me requirements are rather on the artefacts than on the persons who
> interact with them.
> "The data SHOULD not be more complex to produce and re-use than what is
> necessary;"
> -> This hints that we already foresee cases in which it's fully
> understandable that in spite of our recommendations, it is ok to be more
> complex than mecessary. What would be these cases?
> "a first preliminary step SHOULD be to analyze whether"
> -> Can we stay that a step SHOULD be something?
> Compare with the following sentence, which read much less debatable:
> "the vocabulary SHOULD be actively maintained"
> "the vocabularies MUST have an associated sufficient documentation"
> I'm ready to accept I'm nitpicking on this, but I thought I would still
> ask, in case I'm not the only one a bit puzzled.
> Best,
> Antoine

+31(0)6 14576494

*Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*

DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en

Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:

DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |

*Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*

*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 14:27:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:31 UTC