M0019.01 Explicit/Implicit WITHDRAWN; M0019.02 submitted

[John Pryce <J.D.PRYCE@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788

Following various criticisms of the Motion 19.01 position paper, and with Dan Zuras' agreement, I hereby withdraw the motion and resubmit it as Motion 19.02 with the attached revised position paper (version 5). Dan, will you second again?

I have marked changes between V4 and V5 with change bars in the margin. There are two substantive changes in content. First, it now recognises the Motion 16 distinction between "supported" and "available" types.

Second, because the new scheme allows *any level 3 representation whatever* of intervals, I am concerned that -- especially for a type IDbar that is just "available" -- someone could make unverifiable or even fraudulent claims. If I say IDbar is a mid-rad type, how to check that's true? It seemed sensible to require every i-datatype to have an exact text representation that is both readable and writable, which I have done. This goes a long way to provide an audit trail by which to check a type does what is claimed.

Best wishes

John Pryce

Attachment: implicitformatsV5.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document