[sc34wg3] Scope, again

[Marc de Graauw]

* Steven R. Newcomb

| If I understand you, we agree, in general terms, that
| the SAM should define a some assertion type (let's call
| it, for the moment, the "topic-scope" assertion type)
| whose "topic" role type is always played by an a-node
| (i.e., by an assertion), and whose "scope" role type is
| always played by a node whose subject is a set.
|
| Where we differ is in what the semantics of that
| assertion type should be.  I have proposed to remove
| virtually all the semantics from this assertion type.
| You are proposing -- pretty persuasively, I think --
| that, instead, the semantic of "extent of validity"
| should always be preserved as an intrinsic aspect of
| the "topic-scope" assertion type.
|
| Did I get that right?

Yes. Why I needed such a long posting to explain what can be said so concise,
I don't know :-)

| If so, I think we should also consider a third
| possibility: that we are both right.  (At this moment,
| I have no specific proposal whereby the definition of
| the SAM can account for this third possibility, but I'm
| sure that we can figure out a way to do that if we want
| to.)

Certainly. In fact I am more concerned we should not lose the "extent of
validity" semantic than it it should _always_ be preserved.

I agree with everything else you say. Especially with:

| You've raised an important question, and it won't go
| away until we decide what to do about it: what will be
| the fate of the "extent of validity" semantic?

Marc