Jon Heggland wrote:
> In article <qLgye.137278$Nn7.7012386_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
> jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be says...
>
>>>A value has one or more representations.
>>
>>Yes, but note that that was true in *my* definition of value. In ORM
>>terminology the notions of value and representation are usually
>>considered synonymous.
>>
>>>A lexical object is a representation, not a value.
>>
>>Again, under my definition of value. In ORM's vocabulary this would not
>>be true.
>>
>>>A lexical object type is a set of values.
>>
>>Yep, although it would probably have been less confusing if I would have
>>said it was a set of representations. My apologies for that.
>
> Well, now I am more confused than ever. For some reason you did not
> comment on my last statement:
>
>>>Thus, a lexical object is not a member of a lexical object type.
>
> ---which I presented as the contradictory (or at the very least counter-
> intuitive) conclusion of the other statements, and now you say that a
> LOT is a set of representations after all? I give up.
I didn't comment on the conclusion because I already had said that some
of the premises, when interpreted as ORM terminology, are not correct
hence the conclusion, in ORM terminology, does not follow.
Received on Tue Jul 05 2005 - 15:21:48 CDT
