RE: summary of reification?

Brian

may I suggest a process for the reification discussion.

We now have some idea of the entailments we are discussing.

I think it is important that we do not vote on these inidividually, and
potentially end up with a self-contradictory set of statements (logic is not
democratic).

I think we should instead try to group sets of answer to the entailments in
two (or maybe three) consistent positions and then have a straight vote to
decide between them.

e.g.

A Stating reading, for the use-case of provenance, having the following
entailments hold:
???
and having the following entailments not hold:
???


OR

A Statement reading, for maximum consistency with para 162 and 163 of M&S,
having the following entailments hold:
???
and having the following entailments not hold:
???


OR

[...]



My own position is having no entailments hold, which I currently think of as
the Stating position.

In summary, I think we should have a statings versus statements show-down,
using the entailments to help clarify what each position means.



Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 08:33:25 UTC