From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 12/31/69
>Adam -- I had uniqueProperty and unambiguousProperty >confused. But, for the example you gave "Person has SSN" >it should be both. That is, hasSSN is both a uniqueProperty >and an unambiguousProperty, since it is one-to-one (at least >in the idealized world). I think this makes the example more >interesting, in fact. > >The W3C Webont working group is looking for better names to >use for these qualities of properties for its new language. >What do people think of using names like oneToOneProperty, >manyToOnePropoerty, oneToManyProperty, and manyToManyProperty. Well, since you ask.... I think these names are lousy, just like the old names, and for a similar reason: they assume a perspective in which one is *describing* the properties rather than *using* them. I know this is mathematically correct, but it isnt the way that people think intuitively (unless they have several years of postgraduate education, and often not even then.) Take for example manyToOneProperty, such as 'father'. We don't say this in English by talking *about* the property, we say it by *using* the property name: we say things like 'People have only one father, but a father can have any number of children.' Notice that 'father' here can be understood as referring to your typical guy. That might be a kind of abstract or archetypical Father, but that is a lot less weird than an abstract property of the Platonic property of Fatherhood. I would prefer to see a syntax in which people can say things like 'people have only one father' or 'fathers can have many children' rather than talk ABOUT properties at all. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST