Relevance is the quality of something (a fact or a few words) when it connects with a general situation. There is relevance if a specific proposal is related to the topic being discussed. Conversely, a proposal is not relevant if it is not related to the general context.
In the development of a trial there is evidence that is valid, useful and linked to the motive of the case. On the other hand, judges dismiss some evidence because they consider that it is not relevant and has no validity, since it does not comply with the legal norms that must be fulfilled in a trial.
To affirm that an action has relevance is to accept it, initially, as appropriate and correct. The idea of relevance implies adequacy with the facts. There is a connection between the particular and the general.
To consider that an opinion is relevant is to recognize that it is valid, since it has some appropriate characteristic. Thus, something can be relevant because it fits well with a situation and, at the same time, not be supported by other people. Suppose a person is at a neighborhood meeting to propose ideas to improve the cleanliness of the community. This guy comes up with a new cleaning schedule. His contribution is totally relevant. The neighbors then vote and reject the idea of the time change. This example shows that relevance is simply a formal requirement. It is an idea, proposal or proof that meets a necessary condition: it is coherent with the moment and the topic being addressed.
If someone says something inappropriate and inappropriate, it can be considered impertinent. Impertinence is provocation, rude and respectful behavior.
Relevance and impertinence would be synonymous with valid and invalid, respectively. We need to understand each other in our communication and it is necessary to establish certain rules for the understanding to be effective. In some social contexts (meetings, trials, debates…) it is necessary to establish a procedure for action. It is a way to avoid disorder in the participation. In these contexts there are usually responsible persons who monitor compliance with the rules. They are the ones who determine what is relevant and what is not. They act as referees so that the corresponding regulations are respected in the development of an act.
Following