- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 11:52:06 +0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
At 12:09 AM 3/7/01 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > In general, I think it's better practice to name the elements of a > > tuple (making it what? an "object"? a "record"? an "associative > > array"? a relation in its own right?). > >Sometimes. But sum generalizes so nicely to the n-ary case that >the list idiom is awfully appealing. I thought so too. > > People are used to anonymous > > (positional) parts for the addition relation, but I'll name them > > anyway: > > > > :anon1 a arith:BinarySum > > arith:left 3 > > arith:right 4 > > arith:result :_7 > >arith:left is exactly the same as :of , and >arith:right is exactly the same as :and. > >Perhaps :of and :and were too obscure/clever names. Evidently so. I think so... I think it can be tricky to try and map natural usage into formalizations. It's better, I think, to adopt terms that, in isolation, convey some of the intended meaning. #g ----------- Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 07:36:36 UTC