[poe] Issue: ODRL Profiles & RFC2119 marked as To Be Closed

riannella has just labeled an issue for https://github.com/w3c/poe as "To Be Closed":

== ODRL Profiles & RFC2119 ==
the entire [section on ODRL Profiles](http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#profile) is flagged as being non-normative, but uses RFC2119 keywords, e.g.:

> This property is OPTIONAL, but if the property appears, then any consuming system MUST understand the identified ODRL Profile and all the constraints in the ODRL Profile MUST apply to the Policy expression. If a consuming system does not understand the ODRL Profile, then it MAY continue processing the Policy expression, but it SHOULD NOT assume it has interpreted the Policy expression correctly. 

what's the semantics of a non-normative RFC2119 MUST?
 
(cf. http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1);

> It is very easy to confuse statements of fact with normative conformance criteria, because they are often phrased similarly, are styled the same, and usually appear right along with conformance criteria. In specifications that use RFC2119 terminology, the key to distinguishing statements of fact from conformance criteria is to check to see if the spec uses any of the RFC2119 key words. If it doesn't, it isn't a normative conformance statement, and is either a definition or a statement of fact. It's a definition if it defines a specific term (either explicitly, as in the quote above, or implicitly, using the construct "a term is definition"). Otherwise, it's just an statement of fact.

See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/172

Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 04:32:25 UTC