Proposal to split out the "members" from coreQ (Was: Re: Philosophy of basic Q)

[Martin Hill]

Pierre Didelon wrote:
>> What I hoped is that the community would argue about the actual *data
>> model* as described in the interface, until we have agreed on the data
>> model, and *then* we would decide on a preferred loss-less serialisation.
>>
>> I believe an interface is the correct way to describe a data model, 
>> rather
>> than a serialisation. 
> 
> more than "correct", I hoped (before the mail storm) that it would be
> the easiest path to reach agreement. ;-)

A quick point here (given I seem to be largely the email storm) that I don't 
think we do have an object model yet - Quantity is more a framework for building 
  such models.  I would be more than happy to have a look at any real object 
models - we could start with Spectral Energy Distributions and Passbands and 
stuff as that seems really low level, and we can build these with or without 
Quantity as superclasses.