- From: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:26:53 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABP9CAFhX12GJV2dYwDOcMZL8yxzwr6LvXzDpOEcyEP2wwi8kA@mail.gmail.com>
+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 :) Christophe 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 > > -- Onderzoeker +31(0)6 14576494 christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl *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 NWO. 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> | www.dans.knaw.nl *Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!* http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/ *e-Humanities Group (KNAW)* [image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 14:27:44 UTC