Motion P1788/M0021.2: YES
I vote a reluctant YES on Motion P1788/M0021.2 -- reluctant because
I appreciate Dan Zuras' warning about misinerpretation, and others'
desire for KISS.
The position paper does offer an interesting background however, more
concrete (in my opinion) than the bare BRA framework of Dominique Lohez'
proposal (motion 20) -- and the motion itself clearly states that the
mandatory comparisons are those of motion 13, and that the "overlapping"
function (it's NOT a relation, it's a function with a range of 13, 16 or
17 enmerated states -- more on that below) would just be a recommended
addendum.
My position on such optional features is that they ARE worth standardizing,
in the sense that it is only the availability that is optional (and even
that should apply to a consistent package and not individual features):
IF the facility is present, it MUST have the standard-defined properties.
This is more useful than not saying anything, because in that case one
cannot depend on anything.
Now, have we 13, 16 or 17 possible outcomes of "overlapping(A,B)"?
I mention 17 because the result is not an interval, so decorations don't
apply -- yet there must be a result for the case where at least one of the
arguments is invalid. (Not every enviroment supports throwing exceptions.)
Simply treating invalid intervals as Empty may not be the right answer.
I think he critical voting will come when we see the impact of this motion
on the text of the draft standard.
Michel.
---Sent: 2010-12-11 17:57:03 UTC