Re: function terms in Euler, n3, and RDF [was: gedcom-relation e

> > > People are used to anonymous
> > > (positional) parts for the addition relation, but I'll name them
> > > anyway:
> > >
> > >    :anon1 a arith:BinarySum
> > >          arith:left 3
> > >          arith:right 4
> > >          arith:result 7
> >
> >arith:left is exactly the same as :of , and
> >arith:right is exactly the same as :and.
> >
> >Perhaps :of and :and were too obscure/clever names. Evidently so.

Yes, but what about "arith:result" ?   

Tim used "num:equals" which might be okay, although I think it's a
misleading name.

You said you could just use daml:equivalentTo, which I still contend
is wrong, since that collapses terms, giving us just

        7 a arith:BinarySum
          arith:left 3
          arith:right 4

Do you not see how that's a bad structure?  Your first bit about
axioms seems to be based on the ambiguity of "unique mapping" meaning
either many-to-one or one-to-many.  Yes, I agree there is exactly one
number which is "the sum of 3 and 4", but you can't split it up
(meaningfully) and say there is one number which is a sum, and a sum
of 3 and some number, and a sum of some number and 4.  You need to
keep that "anon1" node to tie the parts together.

     -- sandro