RE: Cert comparison needs AI?

[Paul Koning <pkoning@xxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Anders" == Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@jaybis.com> writes:

 Anders> Stefan,
 >> It means that when you form an application, you have to handle
 >> this with care and make sure that the application don't produce
 >> missleading results.

 Anders> Noop. In the absence of defined semantics, this property or
 Anders> quality MUST be a part of a valid QC CPS.  The German (QC
 Anders> sample?) CPS must state that you can't compare German QCs (or
 Anders> do it on your own risk) while the Swedish and Finnish ID-card
 Anders> programs guarantee that you can trust the static unique ID as
 Anders> being the sole attribute to compare (after you have detected
 Anders> that the cert really is belonging to these domains).

Maybe I'm reading too much into this.  Or my expectations are too
high.  But it surely strikes me as very odd to have a "data type"
whose semantics -- if any -- depend on the value of some unrelated
other data object.  I suppose you could argue that it's like a tagged
union type, but that seems a bit of a stretch.

To put it differently, on what principles is a person supposed to
judge the merits of a proposed standard that contains components whose 
meanings, if any, are undefined?

	paul