MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Controlled Vocabulary
Michael and Friends,
I have compared RFC 2119 and Annex H of the ISO Directives and prepared
the following mapping:
MUST/SHALL
RFC 2119: These as synonyms, that is they mean the same thing and may be
used interchangably without loss of precision.
Or, in the words of RFC 2119:
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
Compare that to SHALL in ISO Annex H (MUST is not given as an alternative):
"The verbal forms shown in Table H.1 shall be used to indicate
requirements strictly to be
followed in order to conform to the document and from which no deviation
is permitted."
Table H. 1 lists shall with the following alternative phrasing for use
in different contexts:
is to
is required to
it is required that
has to
only … is permitted
it is necessary
Conclusion: We can change MUST to shall without loss of meaning or
changing the meaning of the use of MUST/SHALL in ODF.
MUST NOT/SHALL NOT:
RFC 2119: Again, these are synonyms.
In the words of RFC 2119:
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
Compare that to "shall not" (must not is not an alternative) in ISO Annex H:
Same header, and provides the following alternative forms for shall not:
is not allowed [permitted] [acceptable] [permissible]
is required to be not
is required that … be not
is not to be
Conclusion: We can change MUST NOT to shall not without loss of meaning
or changing the meaning of the use of MUST NOT/SHALL NOT in ODF.
BTW, a footnote in Annex H notes the following reason to avoid the use
of "must" for "shall":
"Do not use “must” as an alternative for “shall”. (This will avoid any
confusion
between the requirements of a document and external statutory obligations.)"
SHOULD/RECOMMENDED:
RFC 2119 provides:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
ISO Directives, Annex H says (for should/should not):
The verbal forms shown in Table H.2 shall be used to indicate that among
several possibilities
one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or
excluding others, or that a
certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily required, or
that (in the negative form)
a certain possibility or course of action is deprecated but not prohibited.
Conclusion: Recommended can be changed to should (4 occurrences, see my
earlier summary) and reference made to Annex H without loss or changing
of the meaning used for should/recommended in ODF.
SHOULD NOT:
RFC 2119:
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.
Conclusion: Same as for should/recommended, no change in meaning.
MAY
RFC 2119 says:
5. MAY 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.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)
MAY and OPTIONAL are synonyms (note that OPTIONAL does not appear
outside of the terms list in 1.2 Notation)
ISO Directives, Annex H says:
The verbal forms shown in Table H.3 shall be used to indicate a course
of action permissible
within the limits of the document.
The forms listed there are:
may, or
is permitted
is allowed
is permissible
Conclusion: Same as MAY as used in ODF so no change in meaning.
Note that REQUIRED and OPTIONAL, along with SHALL and SHALL NOT never
appear outside of 2.1, Notation.
Apologies for not having done this by the numbers sooner.
After reviewing the language, I think we will all conclude that we can
conform to the ISO Directives usage without changing the meaning of any
parts of ODF. (but that is just my opinion, sing out if you disagree).
Hope everyone is having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]