> > > I don't understand this definition either. What is a "spatial
> > > characteristic"?
>
> I'd just go back and use a style of language consistent with
> the DC 1.1
> definition of Coverage. That way we stay consistent and can rely on
> established precedent.
>
> By the way, "intellectual content" fell out of favor and wound up
> throughout DC 1.1 simply as "content" (I'm pretty sure). It would be
> unwise to use any turns of phrase or terminology that are inconsistent
> between DC 1.1 and the qualifier document.
errr... At this point I'm reluctant to modify *anything* without this groups
by-in. :)
But your point is very well taken... My suggestion would be to make clear
these issues in your balloting response. "Yes, I agree with this concept
but strong suggest the definition be changed to (blah) to reflect
consistence in (blah)...", etc.etc.
While I feel we've made significant steps toward harmonizing the individual
deliverables of each working group, based on the recent responses my guess
is that we're going to have to make one more integration effort after the
voting process is complete.
eric
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|