Re: "Common feature sets"
Graham Klyne <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.medfree |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Ted, I think that your are saying your "grouping below the set" is applied in my sense (a) -- to which I already answered "yes". That is, 2634062802=(feeble, greeble, beeble) can be used as a subset in some other sets: (2634062802, habid, rabid) (2634062802, humid, rumid) (2634062802, zord, dord) (Strictly, my use of "subsets" is questionable: sub-relation or sub-expression might be more accurate.) Are we convergent? #g At 16:13 21/01/99 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: >Graham writes: >> Quoting Ted: >> >Let me ask first whether you agree that the constant aspect might be >> >applied to a grouping below the set. >> >> Er... I'm not sure I understand the question. >> >> I have been thinking that the term "constant" is probably unhelpful, but >> thus far have failed to find a better alternative. I think the term >> "common" might be closer (as in "common factor" or "common base values"). >> This, in turn, I think relates to Bill's "indirect reference". >> >> The bit I really don't understand is "below the set". This seems to >> suggest one of two things (a) to subsets of some set of interest (which >> set?), or (b) to the primitive elements from which the set is constructed >> (feature collections? feature tags and values?). > >If three represenations each require 5 features, three of which are constant >and the other two of which interdepend, how do we represent the three. So >imagine the features are: > >(feeble, greeble, beeble, habid, rabid) >(feeble, greeble, beeble, humid, rumid) >(feeble, greeble, beeble, zord, dord) > >Can we make it something like: > >2634062802=(feeble, greeble, beeble) >(2634062802, habid, rabid) >(2634062802, humid, rumid) >(2634062802, zord, dord) > >Obviously, using 2634062802 rather than "feeble, greeble, beeble" isn't a >big win, but a cksum will be more effective when we have things like > >u.http://www.microsoft.com/win-nt/features/svideo >u.http://www.netscape.com/communicator/features/open-gl-texturing >u.https://www.datefellows.com/watermarks/version4 > >as features. > >I hope that is at least moderately clearer. > best, > Ted Hardie > > > ------------ Graham Klyne ([email protected])