- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:06:52 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: 'Jonathan Rees' <jar@creativecommons.org>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us] > > > From: David Booth > > .... > > Now, for a given entity, let's suppose we have decided > > how we choose to think of it and consider the three possibilities: > > > > 1. the entity does not have the characteristics of an > > IR. It is lacking at least one characteristic of an IR. > > > > 2. the entity has all of the characteristics of an IR, > > but it also has other characteristics. > > > > 3. the entity has exactly the characteristics of an IR > > and no more. > > > I don't think this makes sense. Nothing, except a > mathematical abstraction defined by axioms (group, > commutative algebra, set, etc.) has some exact list of > characteristics and no others at all. It *would* be a mathematical abstraction in that case. Why do you say it doesn't make sense for it to be a mathematical abstraction? > > > In case 1, the entity clearly is not an IR. In case 3, > > the entity clearly is an IR. But what about case 2? In case > > 2 we have an entity that is *both* an IR *and* something > > else: it has characteristics of both. > > > If it has all the characteristics of an IR, then it's an IR, > pretty much by the meaning of 'characteristic'. It may be > something else as well, or it may just be an IR which has > some extra properties (such as containing precisely 347 characters). That sounds very much like what I was trying to convey. Are you trying to point out a difference? David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 13:08:08 UTC