I feel that records are too complex and controversial and varied for standardisation in WG1.
We all love records, but there's a number of ways of doing them.
There's widespread consensus that defining a record type FOO with fields X, Y, and Z should result in procedures FOO?, FOO-X, FOO-Y, FOO-Z, MAKE-FOO, and sometimes FOO-X-SET!, FOO-Y-SET! and FOO-Z-SET!; however, there's less consensus about definition forms, let alone more esoteric features like purely functional mutators, constructs that open up a record by creating a lexical environment in which X is bound to (FOO-X <record>) and so on, etc.
Perhaps most importantly, records need to be distinct types. If you implement them in terms of vectors, everything seems to work fine, but a subtle kind of hygiene is broken. If somebody writes a function that dispatches on type for some reason, and they have a case for handling vectors that comes before the case for some record type, then the vector case will be triggered unexpectedly. Oh, noes!
Also, there is potential variation in implementation. It's widely accepted that programming languages should generally support records in the sense of first-class values in memory, but third-party libraries (or the outer reaches of a more sprawling language) may well want to implement a record-like interface - at least FOO? FOO-<field>, FOO-<field>-SET! *and type disjointness* - to things like persistent data in a database, data accessed via some network protocol, and other such forms. Clearly, Thing One will allow the definition of the procedures, and type disjointness is all we need 'extra'.
And, obviously, any manner of in-memory record abstraction can be implemented with suitable macros - if we have a means of forming disjoint types.
Therefore, I propose that WG1 should standardise a primitive mechanism to create disjoint types, allowing portable libraries to implement SRFI-9, SRFI-99, R6RS records, Chicken records, CLOS, persistent databases, remote access to data on servers, and the like; WG2 should probably pick or create a record standard, but that's not my problem (and I'm happy either way, as I can have whatever record system I fancy as a portable library anyway).
The semantics of such a system are fairly simple and obvious, and the syntax used in the Kernel programming language seems as good as any. Slightly altered for Schemier style, here it is:
(make-encapsulation-type) Returns three values: procedures e, p? and d. Each call to (make-encapsulation-type) returns different procedures. * e is a procedure that takes one argument, and returns a fresh encapsulation with that argument as the content. Different calls to e produce encapsulations that are not eq?, but will be equal? if their contents are equal? and they were produced by different calls to the same e. * p? is a procedure that takes one argument, and returns #t if the argument is an encapsulation that was returned by a call to e, and #f in all other cases. * d is a procedure that takes one argument. If it is an encapsulation that was returned by a call to e, then the content of the encapsulation is returned. Otherwise, an error is signalled.I originally proposed that encapsulations should contain a vector, so that d would accept a second argument which is an index into the vector, and there be a mutation operation, in order to avoid a double-indirection in the common case of encapsulated vectors - but then I realised that an implementation can probably special-case encapsulated vectors in a number of relatively easy ways, simplifying the specification. However, I am still open to being beaten back on that point.