Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

Hi Graham, Paolo, all

Given this,  and to allow us to progress on the document, can we, for 
now, remove
the transitivity property, and add a note in the document, stating that 
the transitivity property is still
under investigation?


On 01/19/2012 09:27 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Hmmm... this is starting to feel to me like a philosophical rathole.
> I think we may be muddling things and roles, as maybe illustrated by 
> your:
>   So similarly I would not like to conclude alternateOf(Bush, Obama)
> This feels like a replay of the old Fregian "Hesperus and Phosporus" 
> sense and reference discussion.
> All this complexity is leading me to a view that while transitivity of 
> alternativeOf may be appealing at some levels of intuition, it may 
> carry too many traps and, absent a compelling requirement, we'd be 
> better to leave it.
> Which I think is what Paolo is suggesting.
> #g
> -- 
> On 18/01/2012 08:55, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 18:01, Graham Klyne<>  wrote:
>>>> alternateOf(paoloInCafe, customerOnRedChair)
>>>> alternateOf(stianInCafe, customerOnRedChair)
>>> Hmmm... I'm not sure these actually match my intuition about 
>>> alternateOf;
>>> i.e. that they're both versions of some real-world thing.  What 
>>> real-worlkd
>>> thing would that be?
>> It would be something like the atoms of the living person who sits
>> within the confines of the red chair. Perhaps it is more a case of
>> specialization than alternateOf in this case.  (and so a strong case
>> for why specializationOf is not a subproperty of alternateOf)
>> But this thing with the atoms is not true. A customer is not a set of
>> atoms. A cafe *customer* is a concept which depends on the
>> interactions with the cafe. While Paolo was in the cafe, he sat in the
>> red chair and ordered coffee - and so for a period (the full lifetime
>> of paoloInCafe) he also became customerOnRedChair.
>> This would probably be fine then:
>> specializationOf(paoloInCafe, customerOnRedChair)
>> specializationOf(paoloInCafe, paolo)
>> -->
>> alternateOf(paolo, customerOnRedChair)
>> which makes sense - they are both talking about the same thing.
>> but if we also have the equivalent assertions about Stian - but the
>> old characterisation interval of paoloInCafe never overlaps that of
>> stianInCafe - then I feel they should *not* be alternateOf each other,
>> because they did not exist at the same time.
>> So similarly I would not like to conclude alternateOf(Bush, Obama)
>> .. because if we do, then as far as I can tell there is not much value
>> in alternateOf() any more.
>> And that is perhaps my point. We can't have a single hierarchical
>> structure organizing everything that exists (and talk about "the same
>> real world thing"), because we include in "exists" various abstract
>> concepts and simplifications that are not easily mappable to our
>> understanding of the physical world.
>> I am sure we can agree that this email message can be characterised by
>> an entity. However you can't easily map that entity to electrons on
>> the wire or photons coming out of the screen - although we are of
>> course aware that the message would not exists without those.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email:
United Kingdom           

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 09:53:25 UTC