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