On Wed, 31 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > 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?
Hmm, looks like I might have been wrong about switches (or I can't find a
ruleset
version that has it at a quick look).
In fact, now that I think of it, it may have been the other way around,
happening
on the contract end. I now remember I wrote in a Contract once, something like
"A
switch in this contract behaves the same as the switch in the rules, with
[Party A]
as the recordkeepor".
But here's how we handled it for assets, we generalized it by "backing
document",
and then later said "as described by its backing document" instead of "as
described
by the rules":
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract
(hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because
its backing document defines its existence.
The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.
[Etc.]
