September 27th, Templates Minutes
Meeting began at 21:00 GMT
Attendees:
Grahame Grieve
Galen Mulrooney (scribe)
Mark Shafarman (chair)
Rik Smithies
GG moved that we bulk-accept all Affirmative-Typos, except for #32. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
GG moved that we bulk-accept all the ones we intend to mark persuasive (specifically: 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 74, 75, and 76). RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 90: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will clarify that example, to explain how it means that it provides this meaning with out meaning that the meaning is in the instance. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 3: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will add a reference to substantivity document. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 7: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will fix them to be consistent. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 13: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will clarify the differences and explain why the RIM definitions. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 14: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that templates can contain CMETs. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 19: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will make "allowed" part of the enumeration and make conformance required. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 20: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "because you must be able to understand the instance without knowing the template. This will not be true if the tempalte asserts a default value. Will clarify this in the text". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 21: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "because although the datatype can be derived from the flavor - and that's probably how a design tool would do it - storing both makes for easier implementations". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 22: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we will clarify the conditionality. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 26: GG moved that we find Not Persuasive in that the codesedt signifies the use. The nullFlavor simply comments on the conformance status. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 27: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "We believe this is implementable and is the best compromise for the term of the DSTU". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 28: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "no. HIST is a datatype". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Items 29 + 30: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll fix the language. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 32: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll fix the language. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 41: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll remove the concepts of shell/sandbag. RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 44: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod in that we'll change to "a set of constraints on a RIM derived Model". RS seconded. For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Item 21: GG moved that we find Persuasive With Mod and answer the question by "". RS seconded.
For/Against/Abstain: 4/0/0
Meeting adjourned at 22:00
