Re: What is normative?

Dear All,

I would see no point in seeking recommendation status if there is no
normative aspect.

The point is that the keywords should be interpreted for those claiming
conformance with the BP recommendation.

So, if someone claims conformance, they MUST, Š Or they SHOULD, etc.

Regards,
Joćo Paulo


On 18/5/15, 12:17 PM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote:

>The issue is open in tracker so I'm taking it as open - but if we're
>taking them out (and I think we are too) then some of the intro matter
>and the template need updating.
>
>Phil
>
>On 18/05/2015 16:03, yaso@nic.br wrote:
>> I thought we had an agreement on this:
>>
>> "An alternative would be not to include any RFC2119 keywords at all"
>>
>> I ran trough the logs and couldn't find nothing against not using the
>> RFC2119 keywords at the document. Furthermore, we talked at the F2F
>> about the translation to Portuguese problem with the keywords. There was
>> another decision on that?
>>
>>
>> yaso
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/18/2015 11:53 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The BP editors have been working hard and have made a number of what I
>>> think are big steps forward with the doc.
>>>
>>> But Issue-146 remains unresolved: what is normative in a BP?
>>>
>>> Take our old favourite first BP
>>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideMetadata that says:
>>>
>>> Metadata MUST be provided for both human users and computer
>>>applications
>>>
>>> I doubt anyone here will disagree with this statement, but is it right
>>> to make this the normative part of the BP? And, if so, are we right to
>>> use the RFC2119 MUST?
>>>
>>> Take a less clear cut example:
>>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MultipleFormats that says:
>>>
>>> Data SHOULD be available in multiple data formats.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> SHOULD is "comply or explain" - i.e. you'd better have a very good
>>> reason not to provide data in multiple formats so I might argue one day
>>> that this should be a MAY. What does MAY mean? From the infamous
>>>RFC2119:
>>>
>>> "This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
>>>     truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item because
>>>a
>>>     particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
>>>     it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same
>>>item."
>>>
>>> (I've omitted the rest of the definition but this is the essence of
>>>it).
>>>
>>> Suppose the WG agrees and this BP now becomes:
>>>
>>> "Data MAY be available in multiple data formats."
>>>
>>> Which doesn't really convey in a single sentence what we mean. We might
>>> end up with
>>>
>>> "Publishers are encouraged to make data available in multiple formats
>>> (OPTIONAL)"
>>>
>>> i.e. re-word the normative line to fit in with the definition of the
>>> relevant RFC2119 keyword.
>>>
>>> An alternative would be not to include any RFC2119 keywords at all. I'm
>>> easy either way - I can see arguments for and against including these
>>> keywords - but it remains an open issue that I think we owe it to the
>>> editors to decide what to do.
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>-- 
>
>
>Phil Archer
>W3C Data Activity Lead
>http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
>http://philarcher.org
>+44 (0)7887 767755
>@philarcher1
>

Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 16:43:30 UTC