omd wrote:
CFJ: A rule-defined entity's name generally CAN be initialized to be
the same as another rule-defined entity's name.
Arguments: This pair of annotations, which I just realized I forgot to
upload when I wrote them a month ago:
[CFJ 2981 (called 21 March 2011): An instrument is not "modified" when
an initial value is set for an attribute.]
[CFJ 2945 (called 22 December 2010): An instrument is "modified" when
an attribute is removed.]
I think the idea that initialization is not a "modification" or
"change" is bogus.
Gratuitous:
The annotations are not quite right (though, to be fair, my judgement in
CFJ 2981 was also insufficiently clear). Rule 2140 (c) doesn't talk
about modifying an instrument, it talks about modifying an aspect of an
instrument; and the idea behind CFJ 2981 was that you can't modify
something that doesn't yet exist. (Rule 2140 now says "set or modify",
but "set" was added after CFJ 2981.)
In the situation described in the statement of this case, if the second
sentence of Rule 1586 doesn't apply, then the first sentence does, thus
negating the "another" part in the process. I'm not sure what judgement
is appropriate for that.
Incidentally, I could have judged CFJ 2981 the same way for a different
reason, interpreting that the Rulekeepor assigns the ID number to be
set but Rule 2141 actually sets it. (This is now moot, as Rule 2141 now
declares precedence over Rule 2140.)
