[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Statement 6 is feeling weird..
In: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30442/xdi-rdf-graphing-v1.pdf First of all, the rules for $has and $has$a used to be quite simple.. Now with Statement 6, they become a bit harder to explain. In addition, it also feels weird on a technical level. There's something that bugs me. Unfortunately I'm not a mathematician/linguist/etc, but let me put it into two examples and a few questions: --- Example 1 What statement produces the XRI +x(+y) ? Is it 1A) +x/$has/+y, or is it 1B) +x/$has/(+y) ? It can't really be 1A), because the XRI produced from 1A) is +x+y, according to Statement 4 in the doc. So it must be 1B). --- Example 2 What XRI is produced by the statement +x/$has/(+y+z)? Is it 2A) +x(+y+z), or is it 2B) +x((+y+z)) ? 2A) feels weird, because that XRI is already produced by +x/$has/+y+z, according to Statement 6 in the doc. 2B) feels weird, because why would you have to put (+y+z) in another set of parens, if they already are in their own context. Note that the statement in Example 2 is similar to the statement 1B) in Example 1. In both cases the object is just a single subsegment. --- Does that make any sense? If you still think Statement 6 is correct, then maybe you could add these 2 examples to your Graphing doc? Markus
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]