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

Hiya,

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Graham Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> tmcl:topic-type isa tmcl:topic-type
>
> Really is intended to say that the topic tmcl:topic-type isa tmcl:topic-type.

But what does that mean to us, to humans, as opposed to being a
technical engineering fetish?

> Its so that when we say:
> tmcl:occurrenceType subtypeOf tmcl:topictype
> and then
> myont:age isa occurrenceType
> And then try to validate TMCL against TMCL it works.

Yeah, I understand why people are doing this (even though I don't
fully understand your example), I'm just saying I think it feels
wrong, that's all. :) Btw, in all my years of development I've always
struggled conceptually with the class-instance false dichotomy (for an
evolutionary geek like me it is highly unintuitive; there are no
blueprints or empty shells which you then fill with live code), and
mixing the labels (or human identifiers, if you like) *and* semantics
of the class with the instance gives me the willies, and it smacks of
trying to sneak abstract classes in without anyone noticing.

Better yet, I'm probably wrong and reacting to the bad loaf I ate at lunch.


Kind regards,

Alex
-- 
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---