Re: [ubl-cmsc] Comments on document - 3.17.04 meeting

[Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>]

I'm uncomfortable with the thought that a particular technology can appropriate
for itself terminology that has been in use for centuries, if not millenia,
and other legitimate uses become displaced. I would like to continue using
the term 'ad hoc', which is (at least to me) more appropriate than 'arbitrary'.
The latter has a connotation of capriciousness or whimsy that the former
does not.

If object theorists cannot see that 'ad hoc' as used here does not mean
'ad hoc polymorphism' then they have a problem that extends way beyond
what this paper addresses ;)

Opinions, please???


On 03/17/2004 05:23 PM, Fabio Arciniegas wrote:
[...]

> 
> 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".
> 
[...]

> .-
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-cmsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD