[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals
john at jaharrison.me.uk
Sat Jun 4 09:56:39 UTC 2016
<CA+16xEedfoAi0qZKSsc7+=y96X0AfydypzbaeqXKYOkXmMsk7g at mail.gmail.com>,
Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've wondered in the past whether the reason the Decisions require
> classification of everything is that because the 'principle' class
> doesn't have a corresponding method title word, it's only by classifying
> everything else with a corresponding word (e.g. 'Hybrid') that you can
> deduce from a method title (by the absence of a class word) that a
> method is a principle.
That might have been part of it, but the fundamental reason surely is that
with peals required to use only types of method that have been defined, and
with the type definition based on categorisation, it follows that anything
that has been defined, and may thus be used, has also been categorised.
It's a tidy, self consistent world, but as history shows it is painful
trying to make it cope with complexity of the real world.
More information about the ringing-theory