Re: DRAFT of the architecture presentation for the WG session this week

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Geoff;

> The use of specific proposals is as examples in the context of the 
> presentation,
> as they are intended to be examples of the various styles of approach.
> This was to constrain the length of time for the presentation as a more
> exhaustive enumeration in the presentation would not really add an
> awful lot to the taxonomy but would take a lot of time.

Wrong.

The proper way to let your classification understood by people
submitting their proposals is to classify their proposals.

It can also act as an evidense that you do read and understand
the proposals.

Do that.

> As I understand the overall plan the to-be-written-document would attempt
> to analyse all the proposals using this architectural taxonomy,

I already showed that your taxonomy is no good for architectural
discussions.

If you disagree, classify 8plus8 proposal after reading
section 4.3 of the proposal.

						Masataka Ohta