- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:32:48 -0700
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: "yaso@nic.br" <yaso@nic.br>, public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
We’ve had an idea at various times to assign a rating system, something like the five stars but different enough to avoid confusion. I still think that’s the best way to deal with this issue. It enables a publisher of data to claim a concrete level of compliance, much like the WCAG. -Annette -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 510-495-2935 On May 18, 2015, at 8:17 AM, 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 18:33:23 UTC