Re: Fwd: Re: TMRM: isa/sub - irreflexive relation vs. reflexive relation
Patrick Durusau <patrick-Q/[email protected]> Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:07:46 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Lars, On 10/08/2011 02:44 PM, Lars Marius Garshol wrote: > * Simon Grant >> What about the class of all classes that are not members of themselves? Is it a member of itself? (If I have recalled the paradox correctly...) > You can define that class in Topic Maps, but only with words, so there is no real problem for Topic Maps there. > Err, don't you mean you can talk about that "subject" in topic maps? That saying some problem X is a paradox, requires a subject. A subject not being a paradox isn't a requirement to be represented in a topic map. Yes? Hope you are having a great weekend! Patrick PS: Have you thought of doing beer reviews on YouTube? Thinking you could use facial expressions of the first sip to start each review. -- 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