an apology, was: Re: proposal: "box datasets" (sandro's dataset spec, v0.1)

First, an apology:  I should not have used any language that suggested 
the box model was better than any other models, or more popular, or 
mentioned the idea of the WG endorsing it on the Rec track.   I got 
carried away because I liked it so much.   Mea culpa.

My remit from the WG was to document one or more models that I thought 
worked.  I've done that in this thread, in a first draft.   The 
appropriate WG discussion at this point is whether (a) this works 
technically as one way to address the use cases, as I think it does, and 
(b) editorial suggestions.

Perhaps it will help make Jeremy happy, or perhaps not.   That's kind of 
a separate issue.

My understanding is that it is not in scope for the WG to be discussing 
which models or approaches to using datasets are better than which other 
models, or to Recommend anything.    Again, my apologies for stirring up 
those waters.

         -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 13:05:03 UTC