Japanese Industrial Standards

JIS A 4002:1989

JIS A 4002:1989

PICSRules 1.1

Validation date: 1989-03-01
Draft prepared association: The Society of Content Issues, Japan

ICS: 91.140.80 Information Technology

Descriptors: meta-data, PICS, content selection, preferences capture and expression
English version: yes: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICSRules-971229

This documented is a translated copy of the W3C's PICSRules1.1 Recommendation. This document may contain translation errors. The normative, English language, copy can be found at:


This Japanese version translation is:
and it can also be found at:
Christopher Smith, Xeron <smith@xeron.com.jp>



This document defines a language for writing profiles, which are filtering rules that allow or block access to URLs based on PICS labels that describe those URLs. This language is intended as a transmission format; individual implementations must be able to read and write their specifications in this language, but need not use this format internally.


The purposes for a common profile-specification language are:

This language complements the two existing PICS specifications, which provide a machine-readable format for describing a rating service and provide a format for labels and three ways to distribute them. In particular, a PICSRules rule can specify one or more PICS rating services to use, one or more PICS label bureaus to query for labels, and criteria about the contents of labels that would be sufficient to make an accept or reject decision. PICSRules does not explicitly include constructs that deal with the verification of DSIG digital signatures, but there are hints to implementors about where to leave hooks for expected future extensions to the PICSRules language to accommodate signature verification.

Translator's Annotation:

The above text refers to concepts which ...


This specification uses the same words as RFC 1123 [RFC1123] for defining the significance of each particular requirement. These words are:

This word or the adjective "required" means that the item is an absolute requirement of the specification.
This word or the adjective "recommended" means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this item, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
This word or the adjective "optional" means that this item is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because it enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the same item.

An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST and all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST requirements but not all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant." User-agents which process PICSRules are free to choose any interpretation they wish for constructs which fail to meet one of the MUST requirements.

This document assumes that the reader has a working knowledge of PICS-1.1. All labels referred to here are assumed to be PICS-1.1 compliant labels. See references [PicsServices] and [PicsLabels] for details.

The PICSRules language: examples