Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Print

---

Gordon, I have read this through a couple of times, and I feel like I  
*should* understand the question, but I don't. So I'll start with a  
question about your question:

>  
> Later, the label "Cookery" is deprecated in favour of the labels  
> "Cooking" and
> "Cookbooks". Each of these is the authoritative term for a concept,  
> with URIs,
> say, my:Cooking and my:Cookbooks; we cannot say:
>  
> *my:Cookery a madsrdf:Variant.
>  
> because Authority and Variant are disjoint classes.

Isn't the assumption that Cookery has been demoted to "Variant" at the  
same time that Cooking and Cookbooks are added to the vocabulary list?

kc

>  
> Ignoring "Cookbooks", we have:
>  
> my:Cooking a madsrdf:Authority.
>  
> We cannot say:
>  
> *my:Cooking madsrdf:hasVariant my:Cookery.
>  
> because the range of hasVariant is Variant.
>  
> So we have to create another URI for the concept with the label  
> "Cookery" as a
> variant heading, say my:Cookery2. We can now say:
>  
> My:Cookery2 a madsrdf:Variant.
> My:Cooking madsrdf:hasVariant my:Cookery2.
>  
> To link the initial Authority and subsequent Variant, both with the label
> "Cookery", we try:
>  
> *my:Cookery madsrdf:hasLaterEstablishedForm my:Cookery2
>  
> But this is wrong, because the range of hasLaterEstablishedForm is Authority.
> Trivially,:
>  
> *my:Cookery2 madsrdf:hasLaterEstablishedForm my:Cookery
>  
> fails for similar reasons.
>  
> We can correctly say:
>  
> My:Cookery hasLaterEstablishedForm my:Cooking.
>  
> But this is indistiguishable from the case given in section 3.3,  
> item a), where
> the earlier heading remains valid and is not "deprecated".
>  
> The only way we have of directly linking my:Cookery as Authority to  
> my:Cookery2
> as Variant is:
>  
> My:Cookery2 madsrdf:hasLaterEstablishedForm my:Cookery1
>  
> We can do this because hasLaterEstablishedForm has no specified  
> domain. But the
> statement is counter-intuitive, of course.
>  
> So it seems that the ontology fails to meet the imperative support for
> deprecated headings, except by some tortuous method involving  
> comparing labels
> of concepts that are related by a specific combination of properties.
>  
> I'm sure I am misinterpreting the ontology, but I can't see where.
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Gordon
>  
>  



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet