ONT Re: Working Or Talking (WOT)
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
W.M. Jaworski wrote (WMJ):
Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):
JA: First question:
What do you mean here by "set"?
(I said that it would be basic!)
WMJ: Please note that I will be using Basic English.
Also install
http://lookwayup.com/free/
in your browser. It is a free dictionary.
WMJ: Set ::= a group of things of the same kind
that belong together and are so used:
"a set of books"; "a set of golf clubs".
I was not being facetious here, and even if I was,
you should know by now that there would be a higher,
more serious purpose to it -- okay, most of the time --
but I really did think that you were using the word
"set" in some specific technical sense, and I see
by your response that you are indeed. I usually
use the word in the sense of what logic and math
folk call "naive set theory" and that is a horse
of another color from its natural language usage.
For example, see the locus classicus:
| Halmos, Paul R., 'Naive Set Theory',
| D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1960.
Your gloss tells nme that you have more in mind,
at least, that you opine that you have in mind,
what I would more likely call a "natural kind".
WMJ: Therefore:
| Name, Cardinality, Type, Comment
| books, 1234, crisp, "books in WMJ library"
| golf clubs, 0, crisp, "golf clubs owned by WMJ"
I am just guessing now, but you seem to be asking me
about what I would probably call my "object domain(s)".
It would take an extended discussion for me to start
telling you my position on the (ab)use of fuzzy ideas.
Are you up for that? We could start with the rather
innocuous looking note that I sent on "Fuzzy Stuff":
http://www.infoloom.com/pipermail/topicmapmail/2001q3/003249.html
WMJ: Now "If you catch my drift ..." start creating
the initial table of sets for your document.
WMJ: Ignore topicmaps construct until next step.
I will comply ...
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤