Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: time limits; this vs a future standard

Another option suggested at the MSC teleconference
yesterday when I brought it up was to put items
that cannot be put into  standards-quality
by the agreed upon time into an informative
(that is, non-normative) but carefully worded
appendix.  The idea is that developers can see the
intent of including the items in a future revision
of the standard, but the items don't need to be
included for conformance to the present standard.
This mechanism may increase the likelihood that
we deliver the document before the end of the
PAR authorization term.

I mention this here as a possibility, without
stating precisely what should be in any such appendix.

Baker

On 08/31/2012 08:57 AM, Kreinovich, Vladik wrote:

I read their message as saying let us include only usual (set-theoretic) intervals and leave everything else as a vaguely described option. If there is time to develop Kaucher/modal option fast let us do it, otherwise let us not.

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Pryce
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:42 AM
To: Dan Zuras Intervals
Cc: stds-1788
Subject: Re: I vote NO on motion 36.03...

Dan and P1788

On 28 Aug 2012, at 14:45, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:

	I vote NO on this motion.

...

	We are voting on THIS standard not some future one
	that might come to exist if it can be made of those
	who can agree more than we.  After all, WE are the
	experts & would also be on that committee.

	If this motion should fail, please take that as
	increased pressure to agree on some sort of Kaucher
	or modal proposal.  If not, don't worry about it.
	Including such intervals at any time invalidates
	nothing about this standard.

	While John has created an excellent framework to
	discuss things such as "flavors", that discussion
	is something we should have now not at some future
	time.  His work is not wasted no matter how this
	motion goes.


I thank you for your praise for my framework, but please would you clarify what you think should be done? To me your words read like

"We risk running out of time. So reject motion 36 and get back to discussing how we might agree to unify set-based and Kaucher in one system. Never mind that we have gone round in circles trying to agree this for over a year."

(BTW I am now using "Kaucher" instead of "modal" after seeing that Alexandre Goldszteijn's work, which seems a solid theoretical basis, uses Kaucher intervals as its basic definition.)

Or does your "If not, don't worry about it" mean that you are thinking long term? I.e. we can put a Kaucher (or modal) sub-document in an informative Annex, and do the same to my flavors, with the aim of making them mandatory in future when we have validated the ideas thoroughly in theory and practice?

What do other people think?

John Pryce