[QUANTITY] and [SIMPLE] <- Re: [QUANTITY] Why quantities always have errors

[DIDELON Pierre]

> From brian.thomas at gsfc.nasa.gov Mon Nov 17 18:53:21 2003
> From: Brian Thomas <brian.thomas at gsfc.nasa.gov>
> To: DIDELON Pierre <dide at discovery.saclay.cea.fr>
> Subject: Re: [QUANTITY] Why quantities always have errors (Was: Re: [QUANTIT] Use-cases, role in larger scheme)
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:52:38 -0500
> User-Agent: KMail/1.5
> Cc: dm at ivoa.net
> 
> On Monday 17 November 2003 12:45 pm, DIDELON Pierre wrote:
> > WHY?
> > why trying to complicate the smallest and simplest things?
> 
> 	Why is this "complex"? Im trying to create a single interface, called
> 	quantity. Surely that is simpler, no? Why are you allowing for 
> 	"sloppy" number handling without clearly labeling it as such.
> 
> > Why not admitting the co-existing of 2 classes, one using the other?
> 
> 	I have allowed the user to do so, if they wish. I dont see your complaint here.
> 
> > Why not let the one who want to play without error to do so?
> 
> 	I have also allowed this too. Just use the "parameter" class as I 
> 	defined, 

So, that's the name of your class equivalent to Pat's Dowler Quantity,
I was asking for a long time ago? 
And now (if I understood well the mail of Jonathan) the SIMPLE class 
introduce in VO.
But I did not found this parameter class in your document in my possession.

Why such a confusing discussion, only due (IMO) to the fact that you don't share
the terms in use on the list or at least in the proposed consensus design.
That's really exhausting, particularly for an english limited speakin'chap
like me.

Now that Words are defined by the authority, I supposed that pat's Dowler Measurement 
class is promoted to VO QUANTITY status, and his Quantity is degraded to VO SIMPLE.

Taking this semantic re-definition (strange for me, but that's the law)
I totally agree with the mail of David Berry (http://www.ivoa.net/forum/dm/0350.htm)
arguing  that composition is better tnah inhgeritence.
TYhen Pat's Measurement is a nice proposal for VO QUANTITY.

But SIMPLE is not yet defined ;-)

Pierre