Re: A suggested revision for UCDs

From: Jonathan McDowell <jcm-at-head-cfa.cfa.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:54:18 -0400 (EDT)

Tom,
 Now that I've read the document and absorbed at least some of the emails, I must say that I like your proposal a lot. Although there are certainly details to be cleaned up, and I agree with most of Norman's and some of Bob's comments, it feels to me a more solid basis for a UCD2.  My biggest beef (which goes directly against Norman's prejudice that UCDs are not an object model!) is that I don't like the distinction between "value" and "instance", especially given that array-valued "values" like "spectrum.value" are mentioned by you. I think your instance is just the value of a higher level term, and I would like to replace "pos.instance" with "pos.value", and then immediately drop the optional ".value" and just say "pos". Why is that a bad idea?  Thanks for doing this work!
   Jonathan Received on 2003-10-23Z13:56:23