Re: [xdi] Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 1-2:00PM PT 2010-12-09

["Giovanni Bartolomeo" <giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it>]

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