[QUANTITY] Quantity "arguments"

[Pierre Didelon]

Hi,
nice to hear you again.
I totally agree, and that's why I am in favor of a VERY simple
QUANTITY DM, like the one you proposed at the beginning,
otherwise we will never converge.
Make the simplest object possible, on which agreement will
be reach faster than on beautifull (but complex) one.
Complexity will be introduced via composition or
agregation, like your measurement and othres concept.
I tink it is the best path to real DM progress.
Pierre

Patrick Dowler wrote:
> While I'm sure all this is very interesting, it seems way off topic to me. I 
> am sure that's why only two people are left standing.
> 
> In the simple Quantity model that I put forward (somewhat privately, but that
> didn't last long :-( I tried to draw from all the available approaches and 
> ideas to make a "consensus". Of course, some ideas did not get included 
> because they were logically inconsistent with others that were more commonly 
> held, more valuable, more aesthetic, etc. 
> 
> The problem with this whole discussion is that it has degraded into "here's MY 
> model - see how I did it right" with a response like "yeah, but here's MYYYY 
> model, and it's pretty cool too". This gets us nowhere. 
> 
> At some point, people have to leave their models at home and provide 
> constructive criticism of the idea on the table. If something is missing, say 
> exactly what is missing. If something is wrong, by all means point it out.
> But bringing a whole new model to the table doesn't help.
> 
> So far, I have seen nothing on this list since ADASS that hasn't been said 
> before - either during the summer, at the Cambridge meeting, on a poster as 
> ADASS, or private communication. Yet my dm at ivoa.net mailbox is filled with 
> messages (on average 20KB!!!) not discussing the same thing.
> 
> my 2c (and 2c canadian isn't very much),
>