ISSUE-214: [Editorial] Read through for "must" and "may"

must & may

[Editorial] Read through for "must" and "may"

Raised by:
Karen Coyle
Opened on:
There was an earlier request to read through the document for uses of "must" and "may" which need special formatting when they are used to mean "is mandatory" and "is optional". There are still many instances of these words in the document which need the special coding. Also, wherever "can be" is used in a normative way, it should become one of the requirement terms, or the sentence should be rewritten to avoid ambiguity.

Some examples:

"The property sh:class can be used to verify that each value node is a SHACL instance of a given type.:" (is this normative?)

"Shapes may have values for the property sh:sparql, and these values must be IRIs or blank nodes." (may and must here probably need to be requirements)

Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
No related emails

Related notes:

RESOLUTION: reserve the use of MUST to requirements on the processor, use "is" or "are" to describe the language, and add a section on expectated input graphs and treatment of errors (or not)

Arnaud Le Hors, 2 Dec 2016, 15:39:05

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <>.
$Id: 214.html,v 1.1 2018/11/26 09:03:35 carine Exp $