原文由 poorlittle(poorlittle) 发表:
In this guidance, the term should identifies recommendations [that, when followed, will ensure compliance with CGMPs.]
本指南中,术语“should” identifies 建议, 若采用该等建议会ensure符合CGMPs
= = = = = =
(意译)
本指南中,术语“应当”实为建议, 若采用该等建议会达至符合CGMPs
原文由 poorlittle(poorlittle) 发表:
In the documents such as Guidance, Code of Practice, Standard (GB, ASTM, ISO etc.), there is a significant difference between “shall” and “should”. “shall” implies a mandatory (强制性) requirement, while “should” implies a recommendation only. It is the reader’s decision on whether to follow the recommendation based on his judgment, but following the recommendation will generally comply with certain requirements.
I believe that the purpose of clause 1.1, which is common, is to emphasize the meaning of “should”. Similarly, the clause in 7# is also a very common one in many foreign standards. The purpose of such clause is not only to remind the readers, but also作为文件撰写者的免责条欵。 (目的是: 假如完全依照有关条文去做却出了安全事故, 也不能控告撰写者疏忽)
原文由 天晴了(smileqing) 发表:原文由 poorlittle(poorlittle) 发表:
In the documents such as Guidance, Code of Practice, Standard (GB, ASTM, ISO etc.), there is a significant difference between “shall” and “should”. “shall” implies a mandatory (强制性) requirement, while “should” implies a recommendation only. It is the reader’s decision on whether to follow the recommendation based on his judgment, but following the recommendation will generally comply with certain requirements.
I believe that the purpose of clause 1.1, which is common, is to emphasize the meaning of “should”. Similarly, the clause in 7# is also a very common one in many foreign standards. The purpose of such clause is not only to remind the readers, but also作为文件撰写者的免责条欵。 (目的是: 假如完全依照有关条文去做却出了安全事故, 也不能控告撰写者疏忽)
参考了你以前发的一篇帖子
shall 译为 “应”;
shall not 译为 “不应”
should译为 “宜”
should not译为 “不宜”