parid0159 | 16 Nov 2002 20:32:13
> > > Note 21: However, the subject of a role player > > > can be a group of subjects ...
> > I'm uneasy with that. Having several subjects
> > playing the same role in an assertion looks to me
> > more natural than having to create first a subject
> > which is a group of subjects ...  If I think I am
> > linked to my children by a "father-child"
> > relationship, have I to consider them first as a
> > group? Or if I don't want that, split this
> > assertion is so many assertions that I have
> > children.
> > I would like the rationale of Note 21 to be
> > expanded. On this father-child relationship, for
> > example.
—bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
parid0159 | Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:05:08
It does not seem to me that your long answer addresses my question. I agree that if I want to speak about the set of my children, this set is a subject and has to be represented by a single node. But my question is why should I be forced into speaking about that set if I'm not interested in it? Why am I not allowed by RM to express in a single assertion. "Bernard is the father of Alice, of Claire and of Jan", without making any explicit assertion about the set {Alice, Claire, Jan}. Moreover, role type of each of my children in such an assertion ("child") is quite natural, but role type of the *set* seems difficult to conceive and name. I'm not the father of a set, but, certainly in different ways, the father of three distinct children, right? So in that case I suppose I have to utter three different assertions?
—bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
parid0159 | Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:51:16
—shunting@etopicality.com
parid0159 | Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:04:28
However, the subject of a role player can be a group of subjects, if the governing TM Application defines the assertion types required to allow the subjects of nodes to be groups of subjects.
(move)
Cover under TM Applications (parid0269).
—pdurusau@emory.edu