From: Joaquin Miller (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 14 Jun 2002 - 19:42:52 BST
i want to toss in three ideas: 1) Brian Henderson-Sellers has done a recent comprehensive analysis. [Examples: Jim Odell, Kilov&Ross, Bunge, Lesniewski, Medieval Philosophy. (This is not to dispute any credit given to Brian, just to make sure the credit is spread around.) ] 2) There is plenty of room for various schemes. [Examples: A piece of pie is not of the same kind as a pie. (i claim.) This particular some of the water in the lake is of the same kind as all of the water in the lake, but not of the same kind as the lake. (i claim.) (where 'i claim.' may, in both cases, be read: as i want to look at it.) ] 3) If two requirements can be met, we are home free: a) An association (or, if you prefer, link) is a collection of model elements and an invariant that mentions each of those elements. b) Our modelling language for expressing invariants is adequate. ....... Which two kinds of means of expressing our love to our spouse make up the adequate set for practical use. What are the definitions of these two kinds, exactly. How do we know these definitions are correct?