Drummond Reed wrote:
> Wil, you wrote:
>
>> I also don't understand how you could use EquivID to express directional
>> equivalence without MapToID/MapFromID. Unless, of course, you encode
>> directionality into an attribute of EquivID, but that IMO is less
>> preferable to having separate elements.
>>
>
> I'm not sure who may have given the impression that EquivID could be used to
> provide directional equivalence; I've always said that its purpose was
> non-directional, and that directional equivalence should use
> MapToID/MapFromID. I agree with you that separate elements for
> non-directional and directional equivalence is much more precise, and makes
> it easier for communities and applications to set policies around their use
> of these synonym types.
>
I should have qualified that this was Markus's and Les's argument a few
days ago, to drop MapToID/MapFromID in favor of EquivID.
I'm not strongly against EquivID, if others on the TC think it we should
have it I will gladly go along.
=wil
