[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Statement 6 is feeling weird..
Yep that's better. Markus On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Drummond Reed <Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net> wrote: > Funny you should say that, Markus. I was on a plane all day today flying back from Boston to Seattle (left just before a big storm hit Boston; landed in Chicago just after a big storm passed by; and reached Seattle just before a big storm hits here - whew!) > > Anyway, on the plane I went over Statement 6 again because it was bugging me too, for exactly the reasons you identify. The solution was to revise the graph for compound $has relationships so that they chain directly. For example, saying +x/$has/+y and +y/$has/+z means you can say: > > +x+y/$has/+z > +x/$has/+y+z > +x+y+z > > Besides solving the issue you identified, it has two other advantages: > > 1) It keeps the rules 100% clean: $has relationships between two XRI can ALWAYS be expressed by direct concatention of the subject and the object, with NO CHANGE to either. > > 2) It reflects the same property in natural language (at least in English anyway). For example, if I use the following four nouns as a phrase... > > American company president signature > > ...then it still means the same thing if I parse them into any of the following combinations: > > American + (company president signature) > (American company) + (president signature) > (American company president) + signature > > So I think it solves the problem nicely. Do you agree? > > =Drummond > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: markus.sabadello@gmail.com [mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com] On >> Behalf Of Markus Sabadello >> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 6:24 PM >> To: Drummond Reed >> Cc: OASIS - XDI TC >> 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]