| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I vote Yes. -- Sylvain Pion Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
IEEE P1788 working group members: I hereby officially open the voting period on our first motion. The voting period will continue for three weeks, until 2009/02/13/23:59GMT. I remind you that you should be registered officially at the IEEE web site to vote. (We will help you do this if our vote tabulator determines you are not.) You should send your vote to George Corliss at: george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx The formal rules are, if you vote "No," you should state the reasons and the changes that, if made to the document, would cause you to vote "Yes." Since this motion is just a position paper, it is governed by 10.1 and 10.5 of our policies and procedures, namely, it will pass by a simple majority. A quorum is determined by 10.4 of our policies and procedures document. I append the actual motion, along with the proposer's Rationale. (Although there was some discussion, no substantive amendments were formally proposed, so the motion upon which we are voting is the one originally stated.) Sincerely, R. Baker Kearfott (acting chair, P1788) =============================================================== Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation Proposer: J D Pryce ===== The P1788 standard will initially use the notation proposed in the paper "Standardized notation in interval analysis" by R.B. Kearfott, M.T. Nakao, A. Neumaier, S.M. Rump, S.P. Shary, and P. van Hentenryck, available at http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers.html This notation will be open to amendment after sufficient experience of using it. The standard will include a copy of the above paper (as possibly amended) in an appendix. ===== ==Rationale== As that paper itself says, interval notation is somewhat fragmented at present. Here is the view of some experts who have thought hard about this issue. We can do great service to interval computation for many years ahead by helping to disseminate their recommended practice, and following it ourselves. Rather than spend preliminary time debating whether we want to amend the proposed standard notation, I think it is more fruitful for us all to accept it as it is for now, and accept the discipline of following its notation for future position papers. In due course, either we are satisfied we can accept it permanently, or some of us are so annoyed by its perceived deficiencies that we have some constructive changes to make. The motion does not say that all position papers SHALL use this notation. I just strongly recommend this, so we get experience of using it. ===== ===============================================================
-- Sylvain Pion INRIA Sophia-Antipolis Geometrica Project-Team CGAL, http://cgal.org/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature