> Again.. we are back to p-r-e-c-i-s-i-o-n... ! :)
Precision and reliability seem to have been carefully disregarded by (most
of) earlier specifications. An assumption of total precision makes things
easier. But it is probably just there, work need to be done.
Our discussions may seem lengthy, but this comes as no surprise. It is a
difficult issue. Let's work a little bit more with that: It seems that we
will soon reach some good way to formulate a really useful EDTF
> the data elements definition would dictate which interpretation applies.
For interoperability reasons, I would really like to limit the number of
interpretations for each syntactic construct. I do NOT mean that we should
not be aware of the different possible interpretations! Let's instead
augment the number of syntactic constructs whenever there is a need for
that and document their semantics in great detail.
If there are three ways to interpret an interval, then let's describe
three different syntactic constructs and their semantics.
Over-simplification seldom solves complexity problems.