> On May 31, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 May 2017, Quazie wrote: >> Thus switches are regulated to being defined by the rules. >> >> Thus switches can only be defined by the rules. >> >> Thus switches can't exist on Agencies and Organizations as the >> rules don't define them to exist within those constructs. > > In the old contract era, we used to have some rule that said definitions > within contracts (currencies, switches, etc.) generally follow some kind > of common-sense mapping to rules definitions (in terms of function, not > tracking).
I was thinking of adding this to State of the Union. Do you have the old wording handy? Gaelan > >> Thus the switches in question don't exist, or at least aren't switches. > > They aren't *rules defined* switches. They may be Agency-defined > switches which might have a common-sense mapping (even if the above > contract rule no longer exists), or might have some tortured > relationship to the real-world definition of switch. > > Just ideas for consideration here; I think your overall analysis is > sound. > >> Thus there are no switches for the Registrar to track. > > This part in particular is spot-on. However those other switches > function (if they do), I think the Registrar tracking is only true for > rules-defined ones. > > >
