OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

# xdi message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Statement 6 is feeling weird..

• To: "Drummond Reed" <Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net>
• Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:24:22 +0100

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]