Re: Expressions versus the value they represent
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a4eb743d-63b2-487a-a3c7-81a1885278e5_at_s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 12, 10:35 pm, 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'.
I agree. I think D&D would say a relation always represents itself. That avoids problems but restricts their utility. Received on Tue Apr 13 2010 - 09:47:53 CEST