Re: RM formalism supporting partial information

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredono_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5f0fb7aa-5200-47e1-8b05-22473a35a0bd@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>

On 15 nov, 19:13, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:

> While I have used the term many times in the past, and I am sure I will
> use it many times in the future, seeing this discussion has impressed
> upon me how unimportant "attribute" is as a concept.
>
> The important concepts are tuples, propositions, predicates etc.

I agree. I propose to ditch the term "attribute" and to use "heading element".

Regards
Alfredo Received on Fri Nov 16 2007 - 05:58:10 CST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: David Cressey: "The distinction between "is" and "has""
Previous message: David BL: "Re: RM formalism supporting partial information"
In reply to: Bob Badour: "Re: RM formalism supporting partial information"
Next in thread: Bob Badour: "Re: RM formalism supporting partial information"
Reply: Bob Badour: "Re: RM formalism supporting partial information"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US