- From: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 15:11:15 +0100
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <555DE783.3010001@derilinx.com>
Issues relating to RFC statements that have been closed. I propose to continue using RFC keywords because of their standardised meaning. http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/135 http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/133 In the example Phil gave, this might be rewriting sentences slightly to be more precise. e.g. instead of : Data SHOULD be available in multiple data formats. to If data exists in multiple data formats, it SHOULD be made available in all existing formats. If we want to create a rating system, this could be done separately, and perhaps best created when all the BPs are finalised? On 20/05/2015 15:17, Newton Calegari wrote: > +1 for removing them all > > Should we use the rating system in the next version that is going to > be published? > > Newton > >> Em 19/05/2015, à(s) 10:32, yaso@nic.br <mailto:yaso@nic.br> escreveu: >> >> +1 >> >> On 05/19/2015 03:45 AM, Annette Greiner wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> On May 18, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>> <bfl@cin.ufpe.br <mailto:bfl@cin.ufpe.br>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I'd like to propose the removal of the RFC keywords from the DWBP >>>> document. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Bernadette >>>> >>>> 2015-05-18 18:17 GMT-03:00 Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>>> <bfl@cin.ufpe.br <mailto:bfl@cin.ufpe.br>>: >>>> +1 Annette! >>>> >>>> 2015-05-18 18:07 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov >>>> <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>>: >>>> >>>> Take a look at how WCAG does it [1]. They don’t use RFC2119 >>>> keywords. Instead, they add “(Level A)”, “(Level AA)”, etc. Where >>>> terms like “must” and “should” arise in the text, they are treated >>>> as they are used in plain English. That obviates the awkwardness of >>>> trying to make keywords that were developed for specifying a >>>> technology work for best practices documents. In my view, using >>>> RFC2119 keywords makes our documents appear to be imposing actual >>>> requirements, which I think is potentially confusing for readers. >>>> It suggests that failure to follow a given BP will prevent users >>>> from being able to access the data. The nice thing about going >>>> without the keywords is that it means people can claim a lower >>>> level of conformance and still feel good, whereas people who meet >>>> the higher standard can claim that and feel even better. We >>>> wouldn't need to compromise on what we expect from people, and we >>>> could provide some stretch goals. >>>> >>>> One particular section of that RFC particularly bothers me in >>>> considering its use for best practices. It’s the following: >>>> >>>> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives >>>> >>>> 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. [2] >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ >>>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Annette Greiner >>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >>>> 510-495-2935 >>>> >>>> On May 18, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Joao Paulo Almeida >>>> <jpalmeida@ieee.org <mailto:jpalmeida@ieee.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>>> Centro de Informática >>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> > -- -------------------------------------- Deirdre Lee, Director Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions Web: www.derilinx.com Email: deirdre@derilinx.com Tel: +353 (0)1 254 4316 Mob: +353 (0)87 417 2318 Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/ Twitter: @deirdrelee
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 14:12:00 UTC