[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xdi] Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 1-2:00PM PT 2010-12-09
Subtle but important clarification... Def. Quota "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xdi.org>: > Moreover, Giovanni said that the left graph is asserting something slightly > different than the right graph.He tried to figure out another example. > Property --> +color, property on a property --> +hue, i.e. +color+hue > > =mycat/+color+hue/+grey > =mycat+color/+hue/+grey > > +color+hue exists even if =mycat is not existing (you could even have > +color+hue as subject in another statement, assumed there is something to > say about +color+hue). You can apply then the first assertion (asserted in > the left graph); in the second statement, you suppose there exists a cat > (=mycat), and it has a color; then you state some property on =mycat's > color. Open issue: could we have similar thoughts when we think about > +age$d? > > Giovanni pointed out that it one key semantic difference is the scope of the > assertion about the property. In both diagram, the scope of the property > +age is =abc. On the left diagram the scope of the property $d of the > property +age is strictly within the context of =abc. On the right diagram, > the scope of property $d is strictly in the context of =abc+age, i.e. > exactly =abc's +age (and not e.g. =xyz+age). > In the RIGHT diagram, the scope of the property +age is =abc; in the LEFT diagram, the scope of the property +age$d (and NOT +age) is =abc. Do you agree? Kind Regards, Giovanni ---------------------------------------------------------------- Invito da parte dell'Ateneo: Il tuo futuro e quello della Ricerca Scientifica hanno bisogno del tuo aiuto. Dona il 5 x mille all'Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata codice fiscale: 80213750583 http://5x1000.uniroma2.it
single-valued-property-example.png
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]