Normative statement in a note

[pchampin]

In https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/WD-rdf12-concepts-20250327/#section-triple-terms , we have a note containing two normative statements (SHOULD, SHOULD NOT)

Every triple whose object is not a triple term SHOULD NOT use http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#reifies (rdf:reifies) as its predicate.

This makes no sense, as notes are non normative.

I see two options:

• turn this note into a normal (normative) paragraph
• keep it as a note, but replace the "SHOULD"s with a plain english (non-normative) "should"s

[csarven]

Agree but the solution depends :)
Just realised that Pierre-Antoine had already made the distinction between changing into non-Note and changing into normative text. Sorry, I misinterpreted :)

If what's currently expressed in the Note is preferable as a requirement, simply get it out of there and include it part of the normative section.

If what's intended is non-normative or advisory level information, I'd suggest to express the statement differently and also terms along the lines of:

“strongly encouraged”, “strongly discouraged”, “encouraged", “discouraged", “can", “cannot”, “could”, “could not”, “might”, and “might not”

See also https://solidproject.org/ED/protocol#advisement-levels and https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#conformance using the above terms.

For clarity, I would also suggest to refrain from using requirement level terms as mentioned in https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/WD-rdf12-concepts-20250327/#conformance even in lowercase. So, limit the use of requirement level terms in uppercase for normative statements, and use advisement level terms for non-normative.

[gkellogg]

IIRC, this language was added at a point where we were still deciding how firm we wanted to be about restricting the use of triple terms. At this time, I think the advice is non-normative, and we should use language that is just suggestive, as @csarven suggests.