Simon Grant wrote: > Could we agree that it would be better to limit the scope of this > specification to represent concepts where there is indeed a consensus, > and preferably a prior consensus, about the concepts of vagueness and > uncertainty that we are trying to represent? Sure! > My suggestion remains that we try to represent clearly two concepts that > seem completely clear to me, at least: > 1. a range of values; > 2. one of a range of values. Yes, but I don't see a true reason for not clarifying the other concepts too. You should clarify what "value" and "range" means in each case - a "value" can be a kind of many different things! > I think we could map most of the cases of vagueness or uncertainty onto > one of these two, particularly if we allow (as we seem to be happy > enough with allowing) a range of values itself to start and/or end with > a range. Interestingly, the start or end ranges are, strictly, the > second type of construct. Logically, a range must start and end with a > single value (even if this is not known for sure). > For clarity's sake, could anyone who thinks there is a really clear > concept that is not 1 or 2 above clarify exactly what it is, and how it > differs from the other similar concepts? There could be: 3. A combination (set) of values. This could be different from a range, for instance if {2000-12,2000} is the set of the month December 2000 and the year 2000, which is not the same as the year 2000. 4. An approximate value. Approximation is a flag that marks a value independent from other properties. The concept is based on fuzzy set theory. For instance the approximate year 2000~ is not equal to any strict interval. 5. a value that is questionable As said above, in each case you need to define independently what "value" means. Jakob -- Jakob Voß <[log in to unmask]>, skype: nichtich Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de