Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us?

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Gregory Williams
<> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2010, at 17:23, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>> I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees that this is useful.
>>> However, I have no idea how we would specify it in the service description document. How would we define a property/class that describes something that is not itself defined anywhere? The only way I see to do it is to define what a property function is, and that's beyond our scope.
>> Right, this is my feeling too.
> Can I take this to mean that my suggested wording isn't acceptable? I'm not sure we need to define exactly what happens when a property function does its thing so long as we indicate that it's up to the implementation, but others may think differently.

I was happy with it, but apparently something is missing.

I think it's clear that we can't (or shouldn't try to) define what a
property function is. I just want to see the particular predicates
listed. That's trivial to do, and it's all that I want.


Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 05:34:19 UTC