Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Proposal 3 in our CCTS feedback

["Michael C. Rawlins" <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

This is an interesting proposition, and I agree with most of it except 
for the bit that says that "the definition of Representation Term be 
modified".  My guess is that the ebTWG CC team would flatly reject this 
as worded on the basis that they are using RT as defined in ISO 11179. 
 I don't have a better wording right off, but I think you want to convey 
the idea that there must be a fully specifed set of supplementary 
components that is associated with each type of RT.

Mike

Eve L. Maler wrote:

> I took an action to suggest revised wording for Proposal 3 in our CTTS 
> feedback.  How's this?
>
> "We suggest that the definition of Representation Term be modified to 
> encompass the function of both Representation Terms and Core Component 
> Types, and that the notion of Core Component Types be removed, e.g. ..."
>
> I think we will also need to come up with an actual list of what the 
> RTs would be (though perhaps this belongs in a separate Proposal 3a, 
> or perhaps it should be associated with Proposal 4).  Please see my 
> recent message for my proposed list.  We don't have to tackle the 
> "inheritance" aspect at this time -- we can avoid it just by providing 
> a flat list -- but if people familiar with the CCTS process think it 
> will be well received, we can try it.
>
> Thanks,
>
>     Eve


-- 
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com