Re: Draft Partitioning

> However, my principle is that I don't mind
>having a BigASS if that's what it takes to avoid having a DumbASS.

Right, it is a mistake to be too much of a TightASS about everything.

> >
> > If you are suggesting that the step all the way from ASS as in the
> > draft partition proposal to schema is too big and to break that up
> > into two layers - built in typing and then user defined typing, I
> > wouldn't disagree with you.
> >
> > I suggest there is value in identifying a base layer which is
> > minimal on which everything else could be built.  Right now I don't
> > expect that MUST include concepts of type, Class etc, but I could
> > be proved wrong.
>
>I agree.  It's just that I think the concepts of type (or Class), and
>specific classes like Statements, are in the base layer already.  It's
>just that we seem to want to avoid calling them "classes" in M&S for
>some reason (we call them "sets" instead), only to turn around first
>thing in Schema and say "you know those sets foo and bar and ... we
>talked about in M&S?  Well those are the classes foo and bar and ...
>here."  I don't see the point in doing that.

I thought the point was that in the base, the sets (classes, 
whatever) are needed to give the semantics, but are not directly 
referred to by anything in the language (rather like the universe of 
discourse in FOL) , whereas in Schema there are expressions which 
indicate (denote, whatever) the classes directly. If that impression 
is correct (;-/) then it would make sense and in fact would be a very 
natural kind of 'layering'.

Pat

---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 10:43:37 UTC