Dear Chuck, (01)
> >
> > MW: The key distinction I would tend to make is that a set
> > has extensionality as the basis for identity. That is, if two
> > sets have the same members, then they are the same set.
> >
> > MW: Types on the other hand, are not necessarily expected
> > to be the same if they have the same members.
>
> Yes - all good aspects that I intend to borrow for my own evolving
> definitions. Thank you.
>
> I might also interject that what I call Types and what I
> call Classes, are
> in themselves Sets. Every Type is a Set, yet not every Set
> is a Type -
> which agrees with what Barry stated about Types being an
> Extension of Sets. (02)
MW: The problem saying that every type IS a set (Barry actually says
every type HAS a set - at a point in time) is that as a type some may
have changing membership, yet sets essentially have unchanging membership. (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (05)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (07)
|