[sc34wg3] Re: Going beyond SIPs?

[Robert Barta]

On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:47:43AM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> ........................Or what about "all persons with the same
> >distance from G.W. Bush should be regarded equal" (not sure how
> >bizarre that is).
> >
> >In these cases there is no property involved. Still, a constraint
> >language may be able to capture this (or at least parts of this).
> 
> You say there is 'no property' involved in the statement "all persons 
> with the same distance from G.W. Bush should be regarded as equal."
> 
> Not sure how that could be the case and yet have your constraint 
> operate? That is to say, each of the persons in question would have to 
> possess a property against which the constraint could be applied.

No, they don't. Let's assume that no one, not G.W.Bush or the other
persons have any property. Nameless, featureless. The only thing we
know about them is that they are persons.

How this could work? Very ad-hoc-ish I would say a constraint like
this:

   forall a,b is-a person
     => distance (a,g-w-bush) <> distance (b,g-w-bush)

Again, I would not suggest that TMCL can capture this.

> Oh, you mean the statement itself has no property?

No, I mean the involved topic do not have a property.

> So, the TMRM subject sameness rule is what you are calling a constraint. 

Yes.

> BTW, thanks for the update on the Tau model. Still reading, slowly,
> but like the precision.

For this discussion only the sections 1 to 3.5 are relevant. The rest
is already ramp-up for TMQL.

\rho