Proposal to split out the "members" from coreQ (Was: Re: Philosophy of basic Q)
mchill at dial.pipex.com
Wed May 12 09:56:55 PDT 2004
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,
>> 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.
More information about the dm