RE: [humanmarkup-comment] FW: [humanmarkup] Base Schema - globalattributes, attribute groups and datatype definition(s)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Title: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] FW: [humanmarkup] Base Schem

A command is an imperative statement, yes?

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

Okay for now, but if you could remember this when we take up the new attributeGroup, I will still be bringing it up in its own separate thread for the record. This thread is still on the strawman toolkit, so if we could keep that straight, I would appreciate it.

However, I will also try to remember for the record that I think command is a type of statement not the other way around. You can have a statement that is not a command, but not a command that is not also a statement, at least verbally. Consider something as simple as "Do this," or "Don't do that." We might want to defer to an expert on thist, if we can agree on one.

Regardless, I'm still not convinced that these are attributes. I think I would prefer them to be elements in their own rights in the Secondary. I think we need to be very careful that we don't paint ourselves into a corner with this. It's another one of those things that could persuade the public that we are out of bounds trying to classify things in ways that the wider communities do not.

But I will have to give it more thought myself. It won't be long until we have the thread fired up. Our list of new elements is short and we only have this one new attributeGroup.