Abstract type (was: Re: A Codelist Issue)

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[Eduardo.Gutentag@sun.com:]

| > We did in fact discuss the use of substitution groups and abstract
| > types for code lists in Washington, and we did come to an
| > agreement among the people attending that we could live with
| > making an exception to the NDRs for code lists to allow these
| 
| but no discussion took place regarding an exception to the rule
| that types cannot be abstract, which I understand from previous
| emails is also part of the proposal.

Unless I'm thinking of something else, the abstract type mechanism
was in Marty's paper, and no one expressed a problem with it.  I
believe that this was even contained in the diagram I put up in
front of the closing plenary when we discussed how the proposed
solution was going to work.

Does anyone remember this differently?

Jon