Comments on document - 3.17.04 meeting

["Fabio Arciniegas" <Fabio.Arciniegas@postgraphy.com>]

My apologies. The battery on my phone died. I followed up until Anne's
question about whether to rephrase more generally section 1.1.

My comments on the document were:

Section 5: pretty much what we discussed: there is no way of talking about
customization of codelists in this document for 1.0.

Section 6: admitedly low on specifics, is the only way these things can be
put for 1.0; is good. Terminology needs revision (are we still in sync with
the other documents?). I volunteer to check that consistency.



Generals editing/terminology points:

1.1
line 131 and all other instances of the term "ad-hoc": all this material
should be pretty careful about object theory terminology (after all is all
about inheritance and polymorphism and so on), so I suggest we don't use the
term "ad-hoc" in this context to avoid confusion with the notion of "ad-hoc
polymorphism".
We can simply replace "ad-hoc" with "arbitrary".

3.1.2
line 326: "it can only work within the limits that the rule that says"
sounds like we don't know the name of the rule. Maybe mentioning this is the
principle of "substitutability" would be good (some call it the "Liskov
principle"). Maybe something like " it can only work within the limits of
substitutability, that is the resulting type must still be valid..."


Sorry again for missing the end of the call,
	F.

.-

Fabio Arciniegas - Chief Technical Officer   | "So far as I can remember,
           Postgraphy, LLC                   : there is not one word in
                                             | the Gospels in praise of
   http://www.postgraphy.com/about/faa       | intelligence" - Bertrand
Russell