- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:58:01 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, David Canos <davidcanos@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
2009/7/29 Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>: > Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a > problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms. Documentation is a pretty common problem... In particular, it > refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either > in the axioms or in the documentation, to explain what this strange term is > supposed to mean. It is not normal English usage to refer to a 'factor' of > an event, so ordinary English usage is no guide. Googling "define: factor" gives me a bunch of definitions, the first two of which are: [[ # anything that contributes causally to a result; "a number of factors determined the outcome" # component: an abstract part of something; "jealousy was a component of his character"; "two constituents of a musical composition are melody and harmony"; "the grammatical elements of a sentence"; "a key factor in her success"; "humor: an effective ingredient of a speech" ]] Either of which could be applicable to an event: something can cause an event; something can be a part of an event. Significantly different IMHO. So I'd suggest that the problem isn't lack of a human language definition...it's having too many. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 20:58:41 UTC