• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:50:42 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200202010059.g110xFj20601@d...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <0a1d01c1aaa1$2093ac90$0a2e249b@n...> <E16WOTI-000802-00@s...> <200202010059.g110xFj20601@d...>

On Thursday 31 January 2002 07:59 pm, Joe English wrote:
> > So, not (element has-a GI) rather (element isa GI).
>
> Actually it's both: the element has-a GI, which determines
> the (principal) is-a relationship.
. . .
> I believe the opposite is the case.  The rule "an element
> IS-A foo whenever it HAS-A bar", where "bar" can be
> "a GI with value X" or "an attribute named Y with value Z"
> is more flexible; IS-A can be a relation instead of a function.

Thanks Joe. You made my point far better than I did!

• References:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread