Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

Works for me :)

I might even go further:  drop the transitivity property until and unless a 
specific requirement comes up.

#g
--

On 19/01/2012 09:52, Luc Moreau wrote:
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
> Luc
>
> 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<GK@ninebynine.org> 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.
>>>
>>>
>

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 12:46:08 UTC