On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Graham Klyne wrote: > Personally, I prefer the choice that it is reflexive; i.e. > specializationOf(a,a) always holds. As I recall, that seems to simplify > some other inferential machinery. > Yes, it solves the turtles-all-the-way problem last highlighted by Tim in this thread, if we also made specializationOf(x,y) imply alternativeOf(x,y), as the unknown top-level y can be specializationOf itself. However I think we dismissed the need for such an inference. Intuitively it sounds confusing to be an alternative to yourself, or a specialisation of yourself, but as we see above there could be special cases where you would want (a subproperty of) specializationOf/alternativeOf to be reflective, so I would simply say +1 for the conservative say-nothing approach for reflexivity. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of ManchesterReceived on Thursday, 29 March 2012 10:32:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:59 GMT