[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: IDN registration policy list <idn-reg-policy@xxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: Equivalence only in one direction*From*: "Adam M. Costello" <idn-reg-policy.amc+0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 23:16:49 +0000*In-reply-to*: <>*List-archive*: <http://www.imc.org/idn-reg-policy/mail-archive/>*List-id*: <idn-reg-policy.imc.org>*List-unsubscribe*: <mailto:idn-reg-policy-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>*References*: <> <>*Reply-to*: IDN registration policy list <idn-reg-policy@xxxxxxx>*Sender*: owner-idn-reg-policy@xxxxxxxxxxxx*User-agent*: Mutt/1.4i

Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Let's call these three labels X, Y, and V, where V is the common > > variant of X and Y, and X and Y are not variants of each other. > > Which of the following tables do you mean? > > X|V > Y|V > V|X;Y > > or > > X|V > Y|V > V > > ? Neither, for two reasons: (1) I haven't started thinking in terms of tables, I'm still thinking in terms of relations, and (2) X, Y, and Z are entire labels, so they are unlikely to appear in the table (the table contains single characters and perhaps short strings). I think you're asking whether I had a symmetric variant relation in mind, or an asymmetric one. I probably had a symmetric relation in mind. The important point was that it was intransitive--that's what made the scenarios interesting (to me). I think it would make sense to avoid fixating on a particular table format while we're still discussing what kind of relation it ought to generate. AMC

**References**:**Re: Equivalence only in one direction***From:*Adam M. Costello

**Re: Equivalence only in one direction***From:*Roozbeh Pournader

- Prev by Date:
**Re: confusability** - Next by Date:
**Re: model with overlapping variants** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Equivalence only in one direction** - Next by thread:
**Re: Equivalence only in one direction** - Index(es):