Last Call Comment: Labelling Normative Material

Raised by:
Sean Bechhofer
Opened on:
Raised by Jeremy Carroll [1]:

1) labeling normative material (editorial - suggest no or little

I assume this issue has been considered before, however I think I
like it how it is.
My immediate reaction on seeing an LC Rec track doc that does not
clearly label either normative material or informative material or
both, is to request such labeling, since it is usually a good
Once I had finished the ToC I had determined that this would be one
of my comments.
However, by the time I had finished 1.3 I was having second
thoughts on this, and overall, I think the document gives subtle
gradations of normativity to its various constraints and
recommendations, which quite possibly actually works, and such
subtly cannot be achieved with the hammer of "1. Introduction
(Informative)". In general it is not a good practice to omit such
labeling because it relies on having editors who can write well. I
believe this to be the case in this instance.

Perhaps the references should be split into normative references
and informative ones ...

Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-177: Last Call Comment: Labelling Normative Material (from on 2008-10-07)
  2. ISSUE-177 draft response (from on 2008-10-10)
  3. Re: ISSUE-177 draft response (from on 2008-10-14)
  4. Real List of No Changes! (from on 2008-10-14)
  5. Fwd: SKOS Comment (various) [ISSUE-177] (from on 2008-10-31)
  6. [SKOS] Update on Last Call Comments (from on 2008-12-02)

Related notes:

2008-11-10: ACTION: Accept

2008-11-10: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-11-10: RESOLUTION: We are pleased to note your comments regarding the quality of the overall writing of the document. We believe that the distinction between normative and informative material is sufficient in the document in its current form. We also note that no other comments have been received on this point, and conclude that others in the community do not see problems in the lack of "sledgehammmer" labelling. As a result, we propose to *close* this issue with no change in response to your comment.

2008-12-16: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: None