Re: Some questions about the exact meanings

Chris Menzel wrote:

> Fine.  The issue, as you are aware, is just whether properties like
> symmetry should only indicate something contingent about a relation's
> extension or something stronger about its "nature".  Either view can be
> useful.
> 
> Chris Menzel
> 
> 



The WG used the words intensional or extensional in their discussions. i.e. 
does a metaproperty hold only by act of fiat on the part of some ontology 
designer (their intension) or is it a statement reflecting the extension 
(in all interpretations).

On a number of issues we went for extension (I think I initially was not 
too keen but I don't really remember) and once we got a few under our belt 
it made sense to be consistent on this. I would guess that everything which 
could be read extensionally now is.

I see nothing intrinsically wrong in saying that Love is symmetric, if we 
live in such a fortunate world.

Jeremy