I doubt neither you nor I have misunderstood anything. I find
a discussion on whether the terms are "dictatorial" or not, and
"unnecessary" or not entirely out of scope of a discussion that
should be or need to be had here. (01)
The debate should be altogether technical. (02)
The question is not "if is UCUM is to be a kind of ingredient in
the brew ahead", but in which *additional* brew ahead. (03)
And I am sure the majority of brewers brewing this brew here like
to focus on content. (04)
There should be debates on content. Then, if that debate on content
brings forth a motivation, there will be an agreement on the
legalese. But there will not be a debate on UCUM's legalese here. (05)
regards,
-Gunther (06)
Christopher Spottiswoode wrote:
> Oh dear! May I assure you, Gunther, that my expression of astonishment
>("Wow!")
> followed by a direct quote and two questions was not meant as a rant? I am
> sorry that you have taken it as one. A stimulus? - yes!
>
> Perhaps you could start by telling us where I might have misinterpreted the
>T&C
> as they appear, or how they might be read or applied differently? They do
>come
> across to me as unrealistically dictatorial, despite their understandable best
> of intentions.
>
> Certainly, if UCUM is to be a kind of ingredient in the brew ahead, there
>should
> be a debate on the matter, or at least some clarification of what they really
> mean.
>
> Best regards,
> Christopher (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (08)
|