Re: Meaning

Really a masterpiece!

I am still "nervous". So that I would like to grasp properly 
the essence of your message. 

Does the following scenario follow your line of reasoning?

There was a protocol (plan) such that once performed successfully by X, 
"X has received an invoice saying \ldots about Y." 
Then, suppose that X performed the protocol, and X got Y. 

X gave the following name to this situation: "X owns Y". 
Later on, X applied so called "data abstraction principle" 
to this situation, and got the following formula: "?x owns ?y". 
X realized that there were other protocols that lead to 
the same situation. X wanted to speak to others in terms of 
this formula. So that, X published the formula "?x owns ?y" 
(specifying also the protocols) to 
"the committee in charge of the ontology". 

Since then, the formula belonged to the language used by the 
community. For convenience, some axioms were invented (by whom?) 
that characterize the formula in terms of other formulas of the 
language. Sometimes such formula lived its own live, whereas 
the protocols are forgotten (as it is usually done in Mathematics). 

Sometimes, new protocols (perhaps not legal) were invented and 
used that lead to (almost) "the same" situation. 
In this case, "the committee in charge of the ontology"
gets together and edits or adds axioms and/or the new protocols 
to reflect a consensus. However, it might happen that this consensus 
already existed. That is, at least a part the community used 
the new protocols and described them in terms of "?x owns ?y". 

Just one remark: "The committee" does not seem to be a good solution in 
heterogeneous and distributed environment. 

Now, I can relax if I got the right "meaning" of your message. 

-- Stanislaw Ambroszkiewicz

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 10:32:14 UTC