NO on motion 26...
I will vote NO on this motion.
Nate recently mentioned the following observation by
Dominique:
> Dominique once showed me a formulation that instead uses the special
> comparison operator <=_DI such that for two decorated intervals:
>
> (I1,D1) <=_DI (I2,D2) <==> I2 \subseteq I1 and D1 <=_D D2
>
> where <=_D is the order
>
> con <=_D def <=_D dac <=_D ein
> con <=_D ndf <=_D ein
>
> I think this is likely to be a more promising direction to try and
> formulate a FTDIA.
This is surely in the right direction for a correct FTDIA.
If Nate & Jurgen are working on something along these lines,
I'm sure I'll be able to support it.
Dan
P.S. - Just a nit: I would reverse the sense of <=_D to
align with the subset direction. Its just a notational
difference but the reversal of I2 & I1 in the above is
subtle enough to be confusing. Since we're defining the
relation ourselves, there is no need for unnecessary
confusion.