Re: For untidiness ...

Martyn Horner wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> > 3: Sergey's example
> >
> > _1 --dc:Title--> "The Origin of Species"
> > _2 --my:book-->  "The Origin of Species"
> >
> > Many modellers may use a predicate like my:book to show a relationship
> > between a subject (a person) and an object they possess (generally a book
> > they possess).

Quite a contrived misinterpretation, I admit. my: is "my" namespace,
nothing more, nothing less. We don't know what _1 and _2 represent. Both
may be publications. Both may be abstract data structures.

> > In which case the following is also plausible:
> >
> > _2 --my:book-->  _3 --dc:Title--> "The Origin of Species"
> >
> > This seems to suggest that "The Origin of Species" is both a title of
> > something and a book. I generally believe that titles are parts of book.

Sure, it does ;) And I generally believe that books are parts of titles
;)

> >
> > Jeremy
> 
> As Lewis Carroll would say: Haddock's Eyes.
> 
> One might assume that _2 is a book consisting of the four words "The
> Origin of Species"... or even (depending on the notation) a shorthand
> for the location of such a short book.
> 
> Tidiness would in this case be invidious.

Jeremy's argument thins out to discussing what _1 and _2 are intended to
be, could possibly be, or are desired to be. It's just unproductive.

I see untidiness as far more invidious. Since literals are polymorphic,
it is possible to create a "datatype" for persons and another one for
names, so that literal "Martyn" may represent a person if it occurs in
one context, or it may represent a person's name in another context.
That's what I call invidious...

Sergey

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 17:07:01 UTC