- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:32:59 -0400
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 06/16/2013 01:01 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > I think one of Pat's points, with which I agree, is that definitions > don't have RFC2112 keywords. that makes no sense to me. The 2119 terms are not only for defining behavior, they are about *any* kind of specification requirements: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt Furthermore the entire RDF spec is a *definition* of the RDF language! It happens to have an abstract syntax, but that is irrelevant. > Definitional specs e.g. SPARQL Query, > don't even reference RFC2119. I have no idea why SPARQL does not use 2119 conformance terms. that sounds to me like a mistake, since the 2119 terms are a useful standard, and that spec also defines a language: a query language. there is no absolute need to use the 2119 terms in a specification. specifications can always invent their own conformance language, or rely on the English prose skills of the editors to make the conformance requirements clear enough, just as was done in the days before the 2119 terms were standardized. but it is silly to do that. the 2119 terms are helpful because they add clarity. David
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 23:52:06 UTC