Rules governing the wording of British Standards

[mattylad]

The use of the word is generally obvious when seen in context to the other words preceding and following it.
i.e.

"521.10.202 .... NOTE 1: Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes may hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."

It is to me, blatantly obvious that this means:

"521.10.202 .... NOTE 1: Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes can hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."

However the word "may" means that it "might" do more than it "will" do by the context of the whole sentence.

The use of it when you say something like:
"The user may use plastic plugs in all locations" is basically using it to say that you "can" use plastic plugs wherever you want. (it does not say this anywhere).

There are likely no "rules" regarding the use of wording (as they can all be done by different groups, different authors) except that there is likely to be some guidance but that will only be available to those within BSI.
How are we, the users of a public DIY forum likely to know? Ask BSI.

That word is used correctly. If you have a problem with it then where were you during the public consultation phase? also discuss this with BSI (where you will immediately get laughed at and ignored!).

(now waits for the multi quote and for my words to be taken apart and bitched back at me...........)

 

[JohnD]

There certainly should be a style guide, and there is no reason for it to be secret.

Technical authors should have clear rules for the use of words such as shall, must, may, might, should.

I'm sure that draft documents go through multiple revisions. Actual rules would not take long to learn and would save much quibbling.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is to me, blatantly obvious that this means:

"521.10.202 .... NOTE 1: Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes can hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."

I agree. And equally obvious that it can't possibly mean "521.10.202 .... NOTE 1: Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes are permitted to hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."

I don't see how anyone can argue that there's a problem with the way that the regulations are worded (other than an academic one to do with rules) unless there are examples where a clear distinction between permissions and possibilities cannot be made.

There are likely no "rules" regarding the use of wording (as they can all be done by different groups, different authors) except that there is likely to be some guidance but that will only be available to those within BSI.

It seems that there are "rules", but we don't know who writes and promulgates them, nor what their applicability to BS 7671 is, nor whether they are actually mandatory or just best practice guidelines.

Still waiting to hear about those questions in relation to this: https://www.diynot.com/diy/posts/4249336/

That word is used correctly.

Correctly according to the dictionaries, which, no matter what suggestions others may make, are not "pandering to the usage of those who are ignorant or mistaken" when they define "may" to mean "might", "can", etc.

But not necessarily correctly in a standards document.

If you have a problem with it then where were you during the public consultation phase?

Good question. And one which all those who were aware of the rules and have criticised and insulted those who were not, and who therefore used normal definitions, have a strong moral obligation to answer.

Depending on what I can find out about the force of the rules Detlef quoted, I might well demand in the next consultation that they write correctly.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Sorry not to have joined in. I've been working all week in Taipei. (Actually on an international standard.)
For the record, I found the standards for standards documents by googling "shall should may" plus the name of any standards organisation. I found 2 or 3 in about 5 min.

 

[333rocky333]

I found

“May” is for when something is possible such as:

• The worker may get injured if the ladder is used.
• The report may not get read if it is too long.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

This is perfectly true in normal English. What I was describing is how to find the rules which are supposed to govern how specifications are written.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For the record, I found the standards for standards documents by googling "shall should may" plus the name of any standards organisation. I found 2 or 3 in about 5 min.

Ah - I tried searches for more specific phrases, take directly from the document you quoted.

https://www.bing.com/search?q="it+is+essential+to+follow+rules+for+the+use+of+verbal+forms"
https://www.bing.com/search?q="in+addition+to+using+the+appropriate+verbal+forms+for"+"annex+g"

Hence:

I've found these:

https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/part2/index.xhtml
https://www.iec.ch/standardsdev/res...ations/directives/principles/verbal_forms.htm

but BS 7671 is not an IEC or ISO directive or standard.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For the record, I found the standards for standards documents by googling "shall should may" plus the name of any standards organisation. I found 2 or 3 in about 5 min.

What can I say?

Nothing turned up when I tried that search - here are the first 3 pages

How many pages in before I find the BSI document you quoted?

Any chance you could just provide a link to it?

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Not trying to be awkward. I just googled it shortly before leaving the country, then my laptop died shortly after leaving the country. Then they bent the airplane fuselage and I missed my connection and a day and a half later ended up in Hong Kong and finally made it to Taipei. If I get my laptop going again I may be able to locate the links though it looks like you found one of them already.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not trying to be awkward. I just googled it shortly before leaving the country, then my laptop died shortly after leaving the country. Then they bent the airplane fuselage and I missed my connection and a day and a half later ended up in Hong Kong and finally made it to Taipei. If I get my laptop going again I may be able to locate the links

Fair enough.

though it looks like you found one of them already.

Not that I can see....

If you're thinking of this:

that's BSI as in Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik

 

[mattylad]

Does it really matter?
The use of the word in the context of the paragraph clearly has only 1 reasonable meaning.

 

[JohnW2]

Does it really matter? The use of the word in the context of the paragraph clearly has only 1 reasonable meaning.

That will very often, perhaps even 'nearly always', be the case - but not always', and that's the reason that one really needs clearly defined conventions for documents such as Standards. How would you interpret the statement ...

"The cable of lighting circuits may have just two cores, with no CPC."

??

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In a wider perspective it matters IF the "rules" quoted are actual, mandatory, hard-and-fast rules, because if they are then the BSI are taking taxpayer money to produce documents which are invalid, and they are selling a product which is invalid.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

In a wider perspective it matters IF the "rules" quoted are actual, mandatory, hard-and-fast rules, because if they are then the BSI are taking taxpayer money to produce documents which are invalid, and they are selling a product which is invalid.

Interesting point. Do they take taxpayer's money? I have no idea.
I've made it back to schipol so far. If I can get my laptop going when I get home, I'll dig out the document I found.

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting point. Do they take taxpayer's money? I have no idea.

If I'm reading the material correctly, it appears not....

Although the Accounts and financial statements are complicated to read for the likes of me, Their Annual Report/Accounts for 2017 ( click here ) appears to indicate (page 99) that for that year they had a total income of 473.0m, of which £8.9m was from 'Sale of Goods', £17.0m was from "Copyright and royalty income" and the lion's share (£447.1m) was from "Rendering of services" - no mention of any income from the government/taxpayers.

In that year they appear to have made a gross profit of £53m and, far from "taking taxpayer's money", they paid a total of £18.4m in tax, £5.6m in UK tax and £12.8m in foreign tax (page 101).

Kind Regards, John