[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] :zz: No Right Answer (was: Re: Conjoinment
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] :zz: No Right Answer (was: Re: Conjoinment
- From: Mark-Jason Dominus <mjd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:22:39 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:32:20 +0900." <220.127.116.11.19981104183220.00f233e0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
> I think that within the overall loose guidelines, there is
> not likely to be an exact determinate answer. Systems
> can be built on ZigZag with *additional* rules which
> would make these answers determinate.
Well, that was my whole point. I started the discussion by saying
> Users must be able to provide their own semantics for dimensions.
and then I gave several examples of `additional rules', such as:
* Dimension A is conjoint to dimension B.
* Dimension A is symmetric
* Dimension A is transitive