Re: Expressions versus the value they represent
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:35:20 GMT
Message-ID: <IcGwn.1531$Z6.16_at_edtnps82>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:35:20 GMT
Message-ID: <IcGwn.1531$Z6.16_at_edtnps82>
David BL wrote:
...
> One of my main motivations here is to question the whole premise
> behind RVAs, which I have assumed are used to /encode/ attribute
> values within parent relations. I don't believe the RM should be
> allowed to play around with interpretation after the fact. Having
> multiple phases of interpretation seems extravagant, unnecessary and
> ill defined to me. I think FOL can encode all imaginable data types
> effectively using nothing more than nested terms with a single
> interpretation step.
> ...
Within D&D's approach I don't think RVA's are at all 'ill defined'. They seem reasonable to me as far as they go. That doesn't mean I like them. Received on Mon Apr 12 2010 - 16:35:20 CEST