Re: complementOf -> viewOf: proposed text

I am personally not worried about not defining the property as transitive.
For specific applications, one can always define it transitive.

I am worried about us not understanding our model enough, which prevents us
from deciding whether its transitive or not.


On 19/01/2012 10:43, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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<> 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 12:55:08 UTC