[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|=20
| So the idea proposed is that we add a note that scope is
| underpowered in the specification we are producing now, but
| otherwise leave it as-is? Presumably this is being done so that we
| can later come back with something more powerful?

* Bernard Vatant
|=20
| That seems reasonable (see other message)

In that case I think we should shelve this idea for now, but put it on
the agenda for Montr=E9al. I think this is better discussed F2F than in
email.=20
=20
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| [...] The fact that this doesn't give you a vote is immaterial,
| since nearly all decisions are in any case taken by developing
| consensus through debate.

* Bernard Vatant
|
| I know all that. My point is that it's always frustrating to engage
| in a process where you have no formal power :o)=20

I figured. What I was trying to say was that you were unlikely to have
much use for that formal power.

| My remark was also about the process that is starting now with AFNOR
| in France, which will be desperately slow I'm afraid.

Well, I hope it succeeds. I would rather see Bernard-with-vote than
Bernard-without-vote.=20

--=20
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >