Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Discussion period extended? Re: Motion 11.01 Basic Reverse Interval Operations



> From: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "stds-1788@xxxxxxxx" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxx>
> CC: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Discussion period extended? Re: Motion 11.01 Basic Reverse Interval Operations
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:50:48 +0000
> 
> I'd like to offer a mild argument AGAINST Motion 11.
> I prefer a standard as simple as possible, but that
> still provided intervals.
> 
> I agree that reverse interval operations are useful;
> I have programmed and used them, too.
> 
> If this were a programming language standard, I would
> accept reverse interval operations.
> 
> However, P1788 is intended as primarily a hardware
> (or hardware-like) standard.  Vendors are more likely
> to implement our standard if there is a clear market.
> The fewer features we write into the standard, the
> easier it is to implement.
> 
> If we add all the features any of us would like to see,
> we may end up with such a feature-rich standard that it
> is to heavy to implement and too hard to document a
> compelling market need for every feature.  The outcome
> I fear is an un-implemented standard.
> 
> Any market survey people or hardware implementation
> people are welcome to make the opposite case.
> 
> Dr. George F. Corliss


	Folks,

	Let me offer an opinion of George's approach.
	I don't really know whether it is in support
	of it or not.

	Offering a low level standard which is easy
	to implement even on portable equipment like
	defibrillators is a good idea.

	Then the principle would be: Make the standard
	as simple as possible.

	But no simpler.

	The question then becomes: Are the reverse forms
	proposed in Motion 11 constructable out of other
	things we are defining or must they be considered
	primitives on their own?

	If the answer is: They are NOT constructable from
	other things we must then ask: What more needs to
	be added to accomplish that?

	If the answer is: They ARE constructable we must
	ask: Can they be simplified & presented in an
	informative annex?  So that everyone implements
	them in the same way or, at least, to the same
	effect?

	Actually, we should ask if they can be simplified
	either way.  Simpler forms are likely easier to
	construct.

	So, you guys are the experts.  Am I supporting
	George or not?

	Inquiring minds... :-) - Dan