RE: Interoperability and Vagueness
Dear Chris,
Nice to know I am consistent :-)
Well this is something I would not be religious about
personally. I would be happy that it was intended to be
the same concept (same extension) and we were essentially
documenting it more accurately. On the other hand, I would
accept that there is a change control issue, and that a
substantive change may have been made - but again reflecting
quality rather than intent.
Regards
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CHRIS ANGUS [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> Sent: 18 January 2005 13:19
> To: West, Matthew R SIPC-OFD/321; John F. Sowa;
> chris.angus@btinternet.com
> Subject: RE: Interoperability and Vagueness
>
>
> I thought that I would let Matthew come back with his
> (predicted!) response before replying. What prompted
> my question about the immuatability of concepts was
> the the issue that associated with the concept there
> is both intension and extension. With at least some
> possible concepts it seems to me that as one's
> knowledge increases one may wish, for example, to
> refine the rules in order to keep the intended
> extension unchanged. If one does this do we
> necessarily need to view it as a new concept?
>
> Regards
> Chris
>