- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:54:28 +0100
- To: Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Following my action item to "Tidy up the conformance language, preferably with bullet points", I suggest the following be included as the conformance statement for our vocabularies. ===Begins=== Conformance to this vocabulary means: - *using* its classes, properties and relationships; - *using* as many of the terms as possible, but not necessarily using every term; - *not using* terms from other vocabularies instead of ones defined in this vocabulary that could reasonably be used. Applications MAY: - specify a minimum set of terms that publishers must use if their data is to be processed by the application; - specify controlled vocabularies as acceptable values for properties. This specification treats such restrictions as application-specific. ===Ends=== My suggestion is that, modulo edits and improvements made by the WG, common wording is used on all GLD vocabularies. N.B. Re-spec includes the usual boiler plate text about RFC2119 keywords. i.e. "As well as sections marked as non-normative, all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative. The key words must, must not, required, should, should not, recommended, may, and optional in this specification are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]." Do we want to include this in a vocab? Probably, but we shouldn't be a slave to re-spec. -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 13:55:00 UTC