Re: where to hang the metadata?

> > > Having only Groups seems to make some people very unhappy; and, yes, I 
> > > noticed that having Rules as well makes you unhappy, althought I am yet 
> > > not absolutely sure I fully understand why :-)
> > 
> > And do you understand why Group makes others unhappy?
> 
> I think I understand why Group, by itself (without Rule) makes others
> unhappy, sure.  I imagine that they (and I) sometimes objectify
> individual rules as individual rules -- distinct from collections of
> rules.  And they want to apply metadata that is intended to refer to
> individual rules -- things about "this rule".  Properties whose domain
> is "Rule", not "Group/Set of Rules".

This is precisely what I do not understand. If there is only one rule in
the group then how come the meta can apply to something else?

> > I would like to make a constructive suggestion that you and Sandro stop
> > focusing on my persona and stick to the issues.
> 
> I'm sorry if my message was problematic.  I thought your
> devils-on-a-needle comment was counter-productive, and I tried to point
> out the difficulty [1], but I guess I didn't do it well.  Sorry about
> that.

The devils-on-a-needle thing normally refers to discussions which one
cannot wrap his mind around. It is exactly my problem with objectifying
rules: I simply cannot understand why do this and what does it buy. I
should remind that I was not the only one in the last telecon who could not
understand.  Chris expressed the same sentiment, although he did not vote.

> > You may not have been doing it consciously, but to an outside reader it
> > might appear as such.
> > I am not the only one who does not like the rules wrapper. On the other
> > side of the issue, there is only one member who is adamant about having the
> > Rule wrapper. So, why presenting this thing as "me vs. the rest"?
> 
> It's not personal at all.  Toward the end of the meeting [2] you (alone)
> indicated that you would object to adding a Rule wrapper.  (Harold gave
> a "-0.5", and my writing has also been to him.)
> 
> My compromise was also aimed at the folks who didn't like Group, and
> I'll be happy to try to talk them into it, if they reply against the
> compromise.

Yesterday Harold sent a different compromise. You did not like it -- your
right. But other people may not quite like your compromise, and this is
their right.


	--michael

Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 18:24:16 UTC