[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Marc de Graauw]

[Marc de Graauw]
> SAM says:
> "Formally, a scope is composed of a set of subjects that together define
the
> context. That is, the statement is considered valid only in contexts where
> all the subjects in the scope apply."

> Furthermore, I suggest the word 'only' should be dropped. When we say
topic
> name 'economie' is valid in when the scoping topic 'Dutch' applies,  we
> surely do not intend to say this name is valid _only_ in Dutch.

[Lars Marius Garshol]
> This I am much less convinced about. I fear that if we remove the
> "only" we are weakning the definition to the point where there is no
> real distinction between "and" and "or".
>
> I also don't think you are really saying "economie" is only valid in
> Dutch.

[Jan Algermissen]
> Regarding the example, we must be careful not to infer from the scoped
> *basename* assignment of 'economie' to a topic, that 'economie' isn't
> a valid *name* for the topic unless the scope {Dutch} applies.

So we all agree on that point. Scoping the basename 'economie' with {Dutch}
does not imply anything about the name in cases where {Dutch} does not
apply.

My point was that the phrasing of SAM seems to suggest otherwise.
SAM: "...the statement is considered valid only in contexts where all the
subjects in the scope apply."
rephrased to suit this example:
"...the *assignment of the basename 'economie' to topic X* is considered
valid
only in contexts where *{Dutch} applies*"

When we say 'We are open only on Monday', that surely suggests we are closed
on Tuesday, doesn't it? So I think the way SAM phrases it now, does suggest
that "...the *assignment of the basename 'economie' to topic X* is
considered
NOT valid in contexts where NOT *{Dutch}applies*". And this is wrong - we
all
agree about that.

Marc