Re: TMRM: isa/sub - irreflexive relation vs. reflexive relation

Simon,

I would have to ask Robert Barta to be sure but I suspect that it was 
required for his path language.

Personally over the years I have come to think that sub and isa should 
be defined by the legends where they appear. (Personal opinion, not what 
the TMRM says.)

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


On 10/05/2011 05:23 AM, Simon Grant wrote:
> On 5 October 2011 10:05, Lars Heuer <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     [...]
>
>     I understand why the "sub" relation is reflexive (implicitly since
>     every proxy is a subclass of itself by definition), but I wonder why
>     stating "x isa x" is explicitly forbidden.
>
>     What's the rationale behind this design decision?
>
>
> Maybe it helps avoid Russell's Paradox? [1] or something similar? Just 
> a guess...
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox>
>
> Simon
> -- 
> Simon Grant
> +44 7710031657
> http://www.simongrant.org/home.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail


-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick-Q/[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau

_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail