Re: What is normative?

Hi all,

I agree with Annette that the rating system can be a really good idea! I
propose to work on this for the next draft of the BP document.

@João Paulo, I am not sure if we need to use the RFC keywords to be a
recommendation. I saw other W3C BP/Guidelines documents which are
recommendations and do not use RFC terms [1], [2], [3] and [4].

I am also not sure if we are using the keywords in the right way.  In this
case, I prefer to remove them instead of using in the wrong way. See below
what the guidance on keywords  (called “imperatives”) from RFC2119 [5]:

"Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and
sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually
required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for
causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For example, they must not
be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the
method is not required for interoperability. [RFC2119]"

Cheers,
Bernadette

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-bp/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
[5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

2015-05-18 16:09 GMT-03:00 Joao Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>:

> Hi Annette,
>
> That just changes the use of the normative statements a bit.
>
> I proposed to interpret the normative statements in the following way: if
> you claim conformance, you MUST, ...
>
> What you are proposing sounds like: if you claim conformance to level X,
> you MUST, ...
>
> regards,
> João Paulo
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------