|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: fundamental facets - inquiry from the XML SchemaWo rking
Gosh, sorry I killed the thread! Maybe I can be indulged just once more. I'm just trying to understand if operations on entities are to be defined per their type, the individual facets of their type, or instead on the axioms of system. I'm not sure there's a clear distinction between 'facet' and 'axiom'. I've looked up the definitions, but it hasn't helped. So maybe I'll resort to example: Peanos axioms: 1) There is a natural number 0. 2) Every natural number a has a successor, denoted by a + 1. 3) There is no natural number whose successor is 0. 4) Distinct natural numbers have distinct successors: if a $B!b(J b, then a + 1 $B!b(J b + 1. 5) If a property is possessed by 0 and also by the successor of every natural number it is possessed by, then it is possessed by all natural numbers. Now, without axiom number 2, it would seem pretty useless to define the addition or subtraction operators. On the other hand, one could say that axiom 2 is a declaration of infinite cardinality, in which case is it a facet on the natural number type!? Ay yi yi! I realize that not all axiomatic systems are interesting or self-consistent. I suppose there are, however, many that are, and some of those don't talk each other. I'm specifically thinking of Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometries; but I don't know offhand if the differences in axioms correspond to differences in operations (or facets, for that matter). If I'm wayyyy off in the weeds on this, forgive me. I expect I'll be hearing the crickets.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








