Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf

On 27/03/2013 01:59, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>Thanks, Richard. I looked at your examples on the vocabulary page, and
>what is there is
>- one CreativeWork (abstract)
>- 2 books (published)
>- 1 movie (published/released)
>
>The books and the movie all declare to be instanceOf the CreativeWork.
>The CW here seems to be the (by now classic) abstract bibliographic Work
>entity, such as the Work entry in a name/title authority file.
>Interestingly, this doesn't show, for example, a relationship between
>two books, or a book and a movie, that have any physical description. So
>the question is: does this apply to any relations between any CW's
>(including sub-classes of CW) at any level of abstraction/concreteness?

Without realising it at the time (as I had not thought of my spectrum) I
assumed that the 2 books were roughly in the same place on the spectrum
(to the right of the abstract CreativeWork) hence there was no instance
relationship between them - only with the CreativeWork.

The movie is an instanceOf the abstract CreativeWork but it could not be
an instance of the book (unless it was a film of someone turning the pages
;-)

>Or only in the case where there is an abstract CW to point to? (The
>screenshot of your diagram seemed to imply a linearity from an
>abstraction.)

That diagram is a view of a somewhat perfect world following a single
route from abstract to concrete in the real world I would expect side
branches and gaps.

>
>If it can be applied to any CW/sub-CW, it would be good to have examples
>that don't hinge on an abstract CW entity like the one here. That, to
>me, tests the hypothesis that one must have an abstract entity in order
>to have "instances of." If an abstract entity isn't necessary, that
>should be made clear.

Logically there should always be an abstract entity - practically in the
real world however there will often not be a description of one for a more
concrete entity description to reference.

>However, without an abstract entity, it is less
>clear to me how one establishes (or explains, or even makes use of)
>precedence between bibliographic items. Perhaps a few use cases will
>help clarify? At the moment I can think of:
>
>- two versions of the book in two different languages (e.g. War and
>Peace in English and French)
>- a book and a movie (and you don't know which came first, cf. Star Trek)
>- two editions (e.g. 2nd and 3rd editions)

I would suggest that these are cases where commonEndevour would come into
play.

>
>There are undoubtedly a gazillion others, but we only need a start. A
>couple of examples of these would be helpful in understanding the use of
>this property.

The more examples the merrier!

~Richard.
>
>kc
>
>On 3/26/13 1:15 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>> OK - I apologise for being a touch too vague in my description in an
>> attempt to avoid using words that could be construed to be something
>>that
>> is already defined in FRBR or BIBFRAME.
>>
>> Let me try another approach.
>>
>> There is a spectrum of concrete-ness (from the abstract to the concrete)
>> that could be applied to CreativeWord descriptions.  In frbr there are
>> four, in BIBFRAME there are currently two, out on the wild web there
>>could
>> be anywhere between one and lots.
>>
>> Assuming it is a horizontal spectrum with most abstract to the left and
>> most concrete to the right - what I believe we are trying to define is
>> that the relationship between a CreativeWork description and another,
>> anywhere right of it on the spectrum, would be hasInstance.  And the
>> relationship between one CreativeWork and another, anywhere to the left
>>of
>> it, would be isInstanceOf.
>>
>> Better?
>>
>> ~Richard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/03/2013 15:32, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not suggesting that we use Schema.org to align terms in other
>>>> vocabularies.  I believe that we should be striving for a set of
>>>> properties that would enable us to describe the relationships between
>>>> entities that can be described as a schema: CreativeWork.
>>>
>>> To me, that does not translate to "instanceOf." As we can see with
>>>other
>>> comments here, folks are taking instanceOf to be a relationship between
>>> an abstraction and something concrete (the instance). If I am not
>>> mistaken, using your definition "describe the relationships between
>>> entities that can be described as a schema: CreativeWork," instanceOf
>>> could be used between any two (or more) things that are described with
>>> schema.org/CreativeWork properties (or any of the sub-classes of that).
>>> As I've said before, this implies that there is not necessarily a
>>> dominant and a subordinate thing in the relationship. These could be
>>> what FRBR calls work/work or expression/expression relationships -- as
>>> opposed to the layered relationships of WEMI.
>>>
>>> If it is truly a relationship (of undetermined type) between entities
>>> that can be described using schema/CreativeWork then it would be best
>>> not to have directionality or subordination (one is an instance of the
>>> other) but a term expressing commonality (these two have something in
>>> common).
>>>
>>> I believe that abstract/concrete can be revealed by the actual
>>> properties used. A description with only an author and a title is
>>> necessarily abstract; one that includes the publisher and date is more
>>> concrete. The description itself is the indicator of the degree of
>>> abstraction.
>>>
>>> If this is the intention of the property -- to make a non-specific
>>> connection between any two or more CreativeWorks -- then it in fact
>>> negates BIBFRAME's Work/Instance and FRBR's WEMI because it is not a
>>> relationship between parts of a single description, as those two are,
>>> but it is a relationship between CW descriptions. That aspect *is*
>>> covered in FRBR in the entity/entity relationships but so far is not
>>> evident in BIBFRAME -- although it may come under the Annotation model.
>>>
>>> I feel we need to clarify this: is this a CW/CW relationship, without
>>> any concept of "broader" or "narrower"?
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As we have identified in previous conversations bibframe:Work &
>>>> bibframe:Instance and frbr:Work, frbr:Expression, frbr:Manifestation,
>>>> frbr:Item (and the entity types in that model only existing in my
>>>>head)
>>>> all can be described as a schema:CreativeWork.
>>>>
>>>> So my model, the BIBFRAME model, and frbr are there to test how good,
>>>> what
>>>> we come up with, is at providing those descriptions.
>>>>
>>>>      > "Instance/realization/derivation of the concept of this
>>>>creative
>>>> work.
>>>>      > eg. The paperback edition."
>>>>
>>>>      > This is very specific, and has within it some strong
>>>>assumptions
>>>> about
>>>>      > CW. Is this what we want?
>>>>
>>>> It is only draft wording - in retrospect it would be simpler if we
>>>> dropped
>>>> 'the concept of'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      > Can we explore how it would be used with CW to
>>>>      > interact with other models?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is sort of what I am suggesting above we are/should be doing.
>>>> However I would use 'usefully be used to describe' instead of
>>>>'interact
>>>> with'.
>>>>
>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2013 21:01, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like "instance" either.
>>>>> Reading the thread I was at one point tempted by "incarnation" but if
>>>>> you
>>>>> think it's too "physical" then we're screwed.
>>>>> Anyway: how about giving us one week to write all the terms on a wiki
>>>>> page and then give us one week to vote?
>>>>> I'm afraid otherwise the situation won't really evolve, unless a
>>>>> miracle
>>>>> happen and someone finds a perfect term.
>>>>>
>>>>> Antoine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure where inversion fits in here, so at least in my mind
>>>>>>that
>>>>>> isn't an issue. What I think Richard is aiming at is a generic way
>>>>>>to
>>>>>> link information about creative works, regardless of their level of
>>>>>> specificity. If that is the case, then "instanceOf" is, IMO,
>>>>>> inappropriate in a number of ways
>>>>>> - "instance" implies a single *thing* not a concept or abstraction
>>>>>>or
>>>>>> class, and there can definitely be relationships between creative
>>>>>> works
>>>>>> at all of their levels
>>>>>> - "instance" is being used in BIBFRAME for something much more
>>>>>> concrete
>>>>>> and therefore folks will assume (consciously or not) a BIBFRAME
>>>>>> definition
>>>>>> - instance seems to have subordination of one thing to another, at
>>>>>> least in the common usage of the term. However, in many cases there
>>>>>>is
>>>>>> no "primary thing" for another to be an instance of. You just have
>>>>>>two
>>>>>> things that are related.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm back to "commonEndeavor" (or something that means approximately
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same thing) at this point, which is broad and vague. However, I am
>>>>>>at
>>>>>> this point unclear on the use case for this relationship, without
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> all of this is just theoretical. Here are some cases that I can
>>>>>> imagine:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - xISBN: the relationship of all of the things in an xISBN cluster
>>>>>>to
>>>>>> each other and/or to the cluster
>>>>>> - a digital copy of the text and a record in a library database, not
>>>>>> necessarily the same manifestation but "close enough"
>>>>>> - a translation of a text
>>>>>> - a performance of a musical work
>>>>>> - a reprint of a book
>>>>>> - a journal article in a journal and the pre- or post-print online
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To what extent are these immediate needs for bibliographic data in
>>>>>> schema.org? I'd say they are not a #1 priority, but that's why I'm
>>>>>> asking about use cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't figure out what we would do with WEMI or BIBFRAME since
>>>>>>those
>>>>>> are "directional" -- that is, they have specific relationships with
>>>>>>a
>>>>>> specific order. (I have vague hopes that we never have to model
>>>>>>FRBR,
>>>>>> but that's just me.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/25/13 7:53 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>>>>>> One of the things that may be messing with our heads is the desire
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>> name inverse properties. I think there are plenty of times in
>>>>>>>natural
>>>>>>> language where we have a perfectly sensible way to express a
>>>>>>> relationship in one direction that seems awkward in the inverse. Is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> part of the problem? If so, we should keep in mind that inverse
>>>>>>> relationships are more of a convenience than a necessity in RDF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:45 AM
>>>>>>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard, the first part of your message:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/13 3:42 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In my model I am thinking of several strict definitions of work,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> none
>>>>>>>>> - that is the way of the broad generic world that Schema is
>>>>>>>>>trying
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> serve.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So one set of 'rules' or school of though may say that Story &
>>>>>>>>> Story-in-English are the same Work others may not. 'We' can
>>>>>>>>>define
>>>>>>>>> what a Work and an Instance are but we are not in the position to
>>>>>>>>> impose that on the whole web.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In answer to your implied 'how are you defining Work and
>>>>>>>>>Instance'
>>>>>>>>> question - I say 'however you like'. The Schema vocabulary should
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> able to describe both the BIBFRAME and Alan Renear's view equally
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> defies this second part. If we don't have definitions for Work and
>>>>>>>> Instance then there is no way to do what you say below -- you
>>>>>>>>can't
>>>>>>>> align things with other things that are not defined. Yes, it is a
>>>>>>>> working definition, but without a working definition we have
>>>>>>>>nothing
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> propose. And, in fact, every property in schema.org has a
>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The definition there now, and the example, leads to certain
>>>>>>>> conclusions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Instance/realization/derivation of the concept of this creative
>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>> eg. The paperback edition."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is very specific, and has within it some strong assumptions
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> CW. Is this what we want? Can we explore how it would be used with
>>>>>>>> CW
>>>>>>>> to interact with other models? (btw, "isOneOf" is making a lot of
>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>> to me now).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once we have proposed a generic way to describe relationships
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> things that can be described as Creative works, I believe we
>>>>>>>>>have a
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>> to identify good practice in how we wold describe FRBR
>>>>>>>>> Works/Expressions/Manifestations/Items, BIBFRAME Works/Instances,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> other well used domain specific entities using this generic
>>>>>>>> vocabulary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2013 01:14, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Richard, regarding your model, I think it depends much on how
>>>>>>>>>>Work
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> defined. If Work is defined the way it is in BIBFRAME, then:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Story
>>>>>>>>>> Story in English
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are part of bibframe:Work, and the story in English is not an
>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>> of the story. Instance comes into use only when the Work comes
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> being (in the "realization" sense). As I understand it, BIBFRAME
>>>>>>>>>> separates the abstract from the concrete. [1] So maybe we should
>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>> what we mean by Work and Instance, and then look again at the
>>>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> use for them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>>>>> [1] However, if you read Alan Renear's work on FRBR, you may be
>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> school that only frbr:Item has physicality, the others are
>>>>>>>> abstractions.
>>>>>>>>>> Neither FRBR nor BIBFRAME feel entirely satisfactory, I must
>>>>>>>>>>say,
>>>>>>>> but do
>>>>>>>>>> I have something better? Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/13 5:34 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not a massive fan of instanceOf and hasInstance either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But applying my test to creativeInstanceOf we get:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Story-in-English is a creativeInstanceOf Story - That
>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>> * Story-in-book-in-library is a creativeInstanceOf
>>>>>>>>>>> Story-in-pbk-book - That doesn't really work. Just stocking in
>>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>> library is not really a creative act.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The works themselves are creative, not the relationships
>>>>>>>>>>>between
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Young,Jeff (OR)"
>>>>>>>>>>><jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:47:58 -0400
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Richard Wallis
>>>>>>>>>>> <richard.wallis@oclc.org<mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>,
>>>>>>>>>>> <public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could have beec clearer, but"isRecordOf" was intended as a
>>>>>>>>>>> joke.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding, "isInstanceOf", I'm reminded that GoodRelations has
>>>>>>>>>>> gr:Individual, which is disorienting for reasons similar to
>>>>>>>> "instance".
>>>>>>>>>>> When GoodRelations integrated with
>>>>>>>>>>>Schema.org<http://Schema.org>,
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> got translated to schema:IndividualProduct, which is less
>>>>>>>> offensive.
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we should consider a similar hair split in this case
>>>>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>>>> schemap:creativeInstanceOf.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to say I absolutely hate instanceOf.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:28 PM, "Wallis,Richard"
>>>>>>>>>>> <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My formatting got screwed by the email system, so I attach a
>>>>>>>> screenshot
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> what I intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2013 23:14, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I tend to hold the same suspicions as Antoine as to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>content
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'few drinks'. I believe your wife was nearer with oneOf.
>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure either convey the meaning of the generic relationship we
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>>> to achieve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally the test I apply to these is to imagine a set of 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> CreativeWorks thus:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasInstance >hasInstance >hasInstance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasInstance
>>>>>>>>>>>> / \ / \ / \
>>>>>>>>>>>> / \
>>>>>>>>>>>> Story Story-in-English Story-in-Book
>>>>>>>>>>>> Story-in-pbk-book story-in-book-in-library
>>>>>>>>>>>> \ / \ / \ /
>>>>>>>>>>>> \ /
>>>>>>>>>>>> isInstanceOf< isInstanceOf< isInstanceOf<
>>>>>>>>>>>> isInstanceOf<
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know this is stretching it a bit, but doing this tends to
>>>>>>>> highlight
>>>>>>>>>>>> where focussing in on individual use-cases hides where things
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate elsewhere. In the above example I believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>'instance'
>>>>>>>>>>>> works as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a broad compromise, where as 'record', 'derivation',
>>>>>>> 'expression',
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'realisation', and others seem to possibly work better in one
>>>>>>> area
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> much worse in others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2013 12:25, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing I like about UNIMARC Authorities is that they have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> notion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a "primary entity" which is the thing the record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>represents.
>>>>>>>> If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> look in the same places in MARC21 Authorities you'll find a
>>>>>>>> tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:58 AM, "Antoine Isaac"
>>>>>>>>>>>>><aisaac@few.vu.nl>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure I prefer these ones...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: "record", really? Did your glasses contain MARC brandy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_%28eau-de-vie%29)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I described the general situation to my wife and she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative: "oneOf". Hmm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After a few more drinks, we finally agreed on "isRecordOf".
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:26 AM,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>"Wallis,Richard"<Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc
>>>>>>>>.o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rg>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have renamed the Work-Instance proposal to a more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>generic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CreativeWork
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>Relationships<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Creative
>>>>>>>>W
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> k
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Relationships> to remove the associations with those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>words
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FRBR,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIBFRAME etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In yesterday's meeting we suggested that instanceOf&
>>>>>>>> hasInstance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be renamed to derivativeOf& hasDerivative. However
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on list has moved away from that idea so I have left it as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest we try some more examples and look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wording.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we have general agreement about the need for these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties. It is the names we need to settle, and
>>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples to test them against and use for explanation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>>>>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>>>>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>>>>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>Karen Coyle
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>ph: 1-510-540-7596
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 19:28:22 UTC