Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 01:07 PM 9/27/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > Pretty much -- solutions that would have met our requirements were
> > dismissed as 'un-elegant'.
>Just for clarity, does that mean that (for those making the decisions)
>name-disambiguation approaches were considered "elegant" while
>name-equivalence approaches were considered otherwise?
Relying right now on a 3+ year history from memory (not digging through
archives at this point), I understood the objection to be very similar to
the conversation you're having with Harold right now -- how clean it might
be for a processor vs. how (non) usable and verbose it would be for humans.
For an archeological exercise I may try to dig up public communication on
the topic over the weekend.