On 18 September 2013 19:33, Jeremy J Carroll <j...@syapse.com> wrote:
> > Something of an aside … > > On Sep 18, 2013, at 1:29 AM, Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote: > > The suggestion that a pair of mathematical entities with exactly the same > extension are not equal doesn't help - it reads like an attempt to redefine > mathematics. > > > > Gregg > > I think you misunderstand mathematics ... > > I attach two pictures. > > The first is my copy, of Jones' copy of a diagram in a book in the vatican > library which is a tenth century, maybe fifth generation, copy of a diagram > drawn by Pappus of Alexandria in the 4th century, which may in turn have > been a (n-th generational) copy of a diagram drawn by Euclid a few hundred > years earlier. > The copy in the vatican library, has, according to Jones, got a mistake in > it: which he corrected, assuming it to be a copyist's error and not an > error of Pappus or Euclid. > > All these copies will have minor variations .. such as angles and > distances and sizes being slightly different [...] > Thanks - you confirm a hunch I had earlier in this thread. I started a mail but couldn't find a way to make it clear: these distinctions we're drawing around graphs echo very similar concerns people have for bibliographic modeling of intellectual works, their literary expressions, manifestations and tangible representation as items - to use the FRBR terminology. This is not to suggest for a moment that FRBR is the best conceptualization of graph change, state, and versioning; only that perhaps it might help to see this as not a distinctively RDF-oriented problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records Dan
