Re: Expressions versus the value they represent

On 12 avr, 16:35, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> 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.
hi paul,

Within D&D, I sometime perceive RVA's as a half-baked attempt to formalize complex types.

But that is just me. Received on Mon Apr 12 2010 - 22:24:09 CEST