Michael,
Your last sentence is particularly insightful, and I do agree with
it. I do feel that certain members are pushing certain issues way
too hard, and that maybe that pushing will end up causing something
ill-conceived to occur -- such as premature branching of the
specification.
-matt
On 6-Jun-05, at 10:02 PM, Michael Stiefel wrote:
> "If we do vote to include the SC, we then have to open up the RM to
> everything else that follows which means that it won't be a RM, it
> will be architecture."
>
> I have never seen satisfactory definitions for reference model and
> reference architecture to say what should be included in one as
> opposed to the other. Definitions are required, not analogies or
> examples.
>
> I think this is another issue that is a subtext to a lot of our
> discussions that has to be settled.
>
> It certainly is the subtext to the one document or two discussion.
> I got a sense at the last conference call, that having two
> documents was a way to finesse this issue without really dealing
> with it.
>
> Michael
>
>
