[sc34wg3] draft Reference Model

[Steven R. Newcomb]

Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no> writes:

> I find it difficult to form an opinion on the current
> model without knowing more about its intended use and
> scope.  Should scope be in there, should it not? It
> really depends on what we want to use the model for,
> and where we think the line between RM and
> applications should be drawn.

Very good question.  There are some aspects of
the placement of that line that seem obvious to me, but
others are not so obvious.

For the moment, anyway, I think it's safe and
appropriate for us to see the RM as an intellectual
tool whose primary purpose is to help us drive
ambiguity out of our description of the Standard
Application.  The RM's other purposes, if there are
any, are not necessarily relevant to the tasks that
urgently confront us.  (Or, if they are relevant, I
think it's safe to assume that their relevance will
turn out to be non-ignorable.)

What do you think of the idea of (at least
provisionally) describing the scope of the RM as an
intellectual tool whose primary purpose is to help us
drive ambiguity out of our description of the Standard
Application?

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

Coolheads Consulting
http://www.coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA