On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Thomas Baker wrote:
> 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)?
I don't see any difference between structured values and value
components. Value components are now obsolete and propesed in reports that
are now seen as faulty by some of their authors. Therefore someone
proposed structured value instead. Don't know who. It amounts to the same
thing.
> 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.
Well, I'm _not_ willing to relax anything. I want a uniform, logical
structure.
A DCBOX HASA (using your terminology) northwestern corner and it HASA
southeastern corner. There is no difference logically between something
that has a corner or something alse that HASA date of birth
> 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.
Come on Tom.
I'm not saying that we should move them in. I'm just saying that the DCMES
has to acknowledge that some values belong to a structured data type. The
DCBOX as modelled by Simon is already in a seperate name space.
DCBOX is much more useful than a the points that are useless for resource
discovery.
> 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
Sigge
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|