RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Arofan's RT/CCT Draft Definitions

My 
version 0.1 recommendations (ccts-comments-ubl-0-1.doc) attempt to integrate my 
"properties" proposal with Arofan's "RT/CCT" one.  At least the proposed 
_metamodel_ is integrated (I left a placeholder for his prose -- to be 
added).  Arofan has agreed to look at that document and comment on the 
metamodel (does it reflect his proposal accurately).

 

Have you got the LCSC comments in a form that I 
can see, Tim?  If they aren't too onerous I could take a crack at 
integrating them in version 0.2.

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 
  5:01 PM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc: 
  
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Arofan's 
  RT/CCT Draft Definitions

These also cross over the 
  comments the LCSC are submitting as well.  it may be smarter to 
  co-ordinate with one set of UBL comments.

i am concerned we may give 
  them mixed messages - when we should be clear on our position

Burcham, 
  Bill wrote:

  
    
    
I agree with just about everything Arofan says here right 
    down to the very end where he makes the point about the terms being backward 
    (that RT and CCT should properly be reversed).  It was informative to 
    finally hear such a lucid explanation of the history behind these two 
    constructs.  If we could get this sorted out to the satisfaction of UBL 
    and CC folks this would be a huge step forward.
<munch>