"unknown" and "not_applicable"

[Leonard Soicher]

J.P. Morgan wrote:

>
>I can go with the changed defn of "not_applicable"; certainly the previously 
>agreed upon defn is not in concert with the customary usage of that phrase.
>
>If we are to be strict about the use of "not_applicable" then it should not be 
>used as a value of an optimality criterion (where it currently means 
>"infinity"). Agreed? 
>

I am quite happy for "not_applicable" to be used for "infinity".  It is
"not_applicable" to ask for the value of 1/0, as 1/0 is not defined.

>I am less convinced about removing the "unknown" tag. 
>

[...]

I take your points on this. 

I will remove the "not-applicable"s we have agreed to, but leave
the "unknown" possibility for the <resolvable> indicator. 

I agree with your suggestion to add "unknown" as a possibility 
for the <partially_balanced> indicator (and will add it unless 
I receive objections).

>>
>>Finally, is there any support for a <one_rotational> indicator?
>>>From the BCC19 talks I went to it seemed that there is some interest
>>in this property, and so I am (mildly) in favour of including it.
>>
>
>No passion one way or the other from here. 
>

Noted. I will add <one_rotational> to the indicators.

Regards,  Leonard