- From: John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:52:49 -0800
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
A pretty good one, not without similarities to the proof that 1=0. All one need do is ignore soem technical detail in some definition, and a logical system becomes inconsistent. That it might be another way to look at the relationship between a container and its contents is another story. Certainly, the material girl would go to jail for shoplifting if she attempted to defend putting an extra item into a bag of groceries just purchased with the statement that it is still a bag of groceries. It might be the same bag, but it's definitely not the same groceries, and even she would have to acknowledge the increase in material. :-) John -----Original Message----- From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@expway.fr] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:14 AM To: John Boyer Cc: www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy John Boyer wrote: > B is the same container in line 4 as it is in line 7, but > B no longer contains the same collection in line 7 that it > did in line 4. > > Containers change content over time. The collection > is the content of the container. There are other ways of looking at that: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2005Feb/0062.html -- Robin Berjon Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 18:53:43 UTC