parid0929 | Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:47:56 
This picks up on Bernard's point regarding Sets in RM. I appreciate that
RM does not subscribe to any mathematical set model but i wonder about
when do individuals become sets?
I'm not sure I found it but if I have two assertions in different maps where:
graham worksfor empolis gmbh
graham worksfor empolis uk
and I merge them what happens?
is it now true that
graham worksfor [empolis gmbh, empolis uk]
through merging, or are the two assertions seperate?
—gdm@empolis.co.uk
parid0929 | Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:08:21 
Exact. But if the role player x is not a set, how do
you make distinct the subject x and the set {x}? The second one is also a
subject, which is exactly the set of subjects that play the role ... So
you have a problem here, and the only consistent way I see to solve it is
to say: "a role player is always a set of subjects".
—bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
parid0929 | Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:04:28
No grouping semantics of any kind are defined by this RM4TM. This RM4TM requires all groups to be explicitly represented as nodes. Any other approach would open the possibility for knowledge about a group to fail to be connected to the single node whose subject is the group, and that would be contrary to the Subject Location Uniqueness Objective.
(move)
Better to include under node properties (parid0220).
—pdurusau@emory.edu