[Textop-en-phil] Top level outline headings

[Larry Sanger]

I wrote:

> > (2) Certain of Philippe's labels for relationships between nodes 
> > become incorrect.  The labels would have to be either changed or 
> > deleted, I think, or risk becoming "metadata cruft."

Philippe MARTIN wrote:

> Clearly. If you keep using relations in the outline, their meanings 
> need to be respected, even the meaning of the default 
> relation (the specialization relation): "Human being" cannot 
> be a specialization of 
> "Things in general" (since "a 'human being' is not a 'things 
> in general'") but it can be a specialization of "Thing" 
> (since "a 'human being' is a 'thing'). The following may or 
> may not make sense: "a 'right and wrong' is a 'thing'".

This really does point up a problem with specifying relations clearly at
this point: it makes it harder to edit the outline, because you have to edit
the relationship metadata too.  Is there any clear advantage, that would
justify that inconvenience, to wanting to keep relationship metadata
up-to-date from this early stage in the project?  I'm afraid I'm not seeing
one: I don't see why we shouldn't just add in the relationships, and
processes for keeping relationship data accurate, once the outline is better
developed?

What would be much more useful at this point is not the analysis of a rough,
rough draft of an outline, which is what my work is, but instead a
discussion of some *practical, usable* principles involved in actually
structuring *this sort* of information into an outline.  I would greatly
appreciate such a discussion from you, Philippe, if you feel up to it!

As to whether "Human being" is a specialization of "Things in general":
well, aren't you being a little pedantic here?  It's just a matter of
formulation.  I can use the name of a set ("things in general"), the name of
an abstraction ("thinghood"), or a singular formulation ("thing").  The
reason "things in general" sounds more natural than "thing" (or "the
functions of language" instead of "function of language") is that the former
is what you say when asked what you're talking about.  It's purely a matter
of style and readability.  Will it make it the slightest bit more difficult
to identify the proper relationship between nodes if we do not fastidiously
insist on the singular form?

> Apart from that, generally speaking, the changes are in the 
> right direction.

Great!

--Larry