> > > > 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. right... it's more like evaluatesTo or some such; i.e. the :of/:and thing is an expression, not a number. I think. > 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? yup. > 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. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 08:44:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:34:45 GMT