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

[Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Giovanni Bartolomeo <giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it> wrote:

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?

Giovanni, you are correct. Ironic that we were all staring at the minutes in Idearpad and no one saw this. Good catch!

I'll issue corrected minutes.

=Drummond