<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Markus, all,<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 15/09/2021 à 16:50, Markus
Demleitner a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20210915145053.iv4xsin4vv6rdgr2@victor"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">This is a point where I have a major disagreement with Markus I'm
afraid.
If we want to build a consistent vocabulary we have to think a
little bit ahead and also around the specific use case we are
dealing with.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
It would certainly be nice to do that, but frankly, all experience
has shown that it's hard to get that right. The current debate on
#calibration is an example: I'll be the first to admit that the
VEP-006 solution isn't great, but it's the best we can do given
decisions passed when we didn't yet understand the problems as well.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>What is exactly my concern about VEP-006<b> as it is now </b>?</p>
<p>The previous definitions of #calibration, #bias, #dark and #flat
were perfectly correct for use case A (calibration stuffed already
applied to obtain #this, see my previous email)</p>
<p>Sincerely when we created this datalink semantics vocabulary in
2014, I always understood that is was for use case A and that we
all had that in mind. And the old definition was pretty good for
that.<br>
</p>
<p>In VEP-006 the new definition moves from "use case A" to "use
case B" (calibration stuff we want to apply to #this) and let "use
case A" orphan !!</p>
<p>The trick is that even if we could duplicate the #calibration
tree with different terms for each of these use cases, most of the
definition will be the same. Except the tense.</p>
<p>So my proposal to modify VEP-006 and tackle both use cases. Can
we combine terms in the semantics field ?</p>
<p>Can we have a single #calibration branch for calibration stuff
and combine it with a relationship term like "#applied",
#applicable ?</p>
<p>Instead of having #calibration_applicable and
#calibration_applied (and children) as terms to check in the
vocabulary list for the client, we would have
#calibration;#applied and #calibration;#applicable. And there the
client has to check a combination of two terms available in the
vocabulary list.</p>
<p>Is that something that developers of clients could admit ?</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>François<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>