On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Sigfrid Lundberg, Lub NetLab wrote:
> > If DCBOX and DCPOINT now were to be taken off this ballot -- which I
> > would have to support in the name of being conservative in our
> > recommendations, because these things will be harder to fix once
> > they are stamped as "recommended" -- I would like to see a clear
> > plan to resubmit them for WG approval, then to put them as soon as
> > possible onto a special ballot.
>
> Perhaps the Agents working group should be given the same opportunity;)
> I don't see the difference.
I looked back at the ballot and do not see any proposals from the Agent
WG for constructions analogous to DCBOX and DCPOINT. Which of the
qualifiers proposed by the Agent WG do you see as a structured value
(as opposed to a value component)?
DCBOX and DCPOINT do cross that fuzzy line beyond which syntax is mixed
with semantics. I must admit that I was willing to relax the criteria
in the case of Coverage, because it is not clear to me how this
element, which can hold many types of data about Place and Time, can
gracefully dumb-down at all.
If it sets a bad precedent, however, and opens the door to putting
structured values about agents into the Core itself, then I think we
are right to leave DCBOX and DCPOINT off of the ballot for DCMES
qualifiers.
Since they clearly are reasonable and well-formulated proposals,
however, with reasonably strong backing from the UC, I would rather see
them submitted for approval by the UC in the context of a short usage
note on Coverage. I should think this could be done relatively
quickly, and could provide a good model for how structured values of
CCP elements could be handled.
Tom
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|