[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Bernard Vatant]

*Jan
> No, as I said, I do NOT agree with that. If the extend of validity of a
> basename characteristic assignment is the scope {Dutch} then (at least I)
> draw the conclusion that it is NOT valid outside that scope. As you say,
> 'We are open only on Monday' implies that 'we are closed on Tuesday'.

> My point was, that 'economie' is NOT a valid basename for the topic
> if NOT *{Dutch}* applies, but that this says nothing about the validity
> of the potential validity of 'economie' as a mere name.

Jan, I don't think your view is sustainable from a logical viewpoint. My other message on
scoping variables addresses it, but I want to be more specific on this example. What you
want to link is two assertions:

1: Scoping language is "Dutch"
2: Topic baseName is "economie"

What is meant there is clearly, at least I think everybody agrees on that:

"If 1, then 2".

What you want is : If not 1, then not 2
Which is another expression of : If 2, then 1

Think it twice: that would mean that if any language uses "economie" as baseName for this
topic, then this language is Dutch? Does not make sense, because you don't know about all
possible languages on Earth - or elsewhere :) - where that assertion could be valid - I
guess there are several other languages where "economie" is used for the same topic, that
we may not be aware of.

But my hunch is that it's hard to generalize any rule from this case. In some cases other
than language scope, it could be that the scope is considered as an absolute and
restrictive domain of validity. Suppose files have confidential names, and the scope
defines the set of users having access to those identifiers.

1: Scoping user is "Agent 007"
2: Topic baseName is "J.K. Wilson"

Maybe I want *only* Agent 007 to know about this topic baseName, and that is what I
implicitly use scope for in that case.

So - sorry to repeat myself ...You can't set generic rules for scopes, even for scopes on
names, because scope assignment can carry opposite semantics:

either "This is one condition in which the assertion is valid" (and it might be valid in
some others)
or "This is the only condition in which the assertion has to be considered valid"

The more I think about it, the less I think we can make general sense of scope in a way
that could be supported by any kind of formal model, because we can't restrict it to be
one of the two terms of the above alternative, and support both under a single concept is
contradictory. Maybe we need to introduce the notions of "necessary scope" and "sufficient
scope" after all?

Bernard