[r-t] Unclassified

[John Harrison]

In article <d010693a-08b7-9c55-fc54-592a73f93516 at robinw.org.uk>,
   Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:

> There will be those who believe that 'unclassified' is no different
> from 'non-compliant' or 'not-recognised'.

The two are completely different.  One relates to a method (an inanimate
construct) and the other relates to a performance (by human ringers).

Unclassified merely states that the classification system has not so far
been extended to provide a category to describe a (perfectly acceptable)
method.  The only visible evidence of that fact in a performance report is
that the method name does not include a class.  It might therefore at
casual glance be thought to be a principle, but those in the know and those
who take the trouble to look it up will realise that it has special
properties not so far found in many other methods.

Non-compliant (or non-recognised) states that the CC considers the
performance does not have the necessary qualities to be considered equal to
the majority of other performances that do.   

The first is non-judgemental but the second is judgemental.

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk