Re: Motion 36.03: Flavors No
Ulrich and P1788
On 25 Aug 2012, at 16:30, Ulrich Kulisch wrote:
> My vote on motion 36.03 is No.
> I would vote Yes if the number of flavours and the time for presenting a flavour would be limited.
>
> Rationale:
> What the scientific computing community primarily expects from P1788 is a standard on set based intervals, i.e., on closed (bounded and unbounded) real intervals of IR and \overline{IR}. I appreciate the goal keeping the standard open for possible extensions. But there is no need keeping it open for all kinds of (exotic) extensions.
The time for presenting a flavour this time around will be limited. There will be a deadline in 2013 which I expect Baker and Nathalie will set shortly.
I propose the process for accepting a new flavour in the future be essentially the same as for accepting a journal paper:
- Ongoing 1788 committee to be set up, including an editorial board.
- Any new flavour document to be sent to editorial board and peer-reviewed
according to suitable criteria: e.g. mathematical soundness plus usefulness
in applications.
This is NOT a free-for all.
I hope the Kaucher/modal group get on with their document, meantime I aim to work with Christian Keil on the set-based one.
John Pryce