Talk:Range relationships

From LMNLWiki

This is great.

[edit]

Terminology

More minor comments about terminology (I've been thinking about these relations a lot over the last months so I hope you don't mind).

Another useful term could be "adjoins", when a range either immediately precedes or follows another.

I know I voted for "strictly" (or have a vague memory of having done so, or even suggesting it) but I'd take it back if I had anything better to offer. How about "remotely"? --Wendell 21:19, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

You mean just for precedes and follows? --John Cowan 12:41, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
Yup, good catch. For 'encloses' and 'within' I suggest we say ... 'enfolds' and 'occupies'? Hm. I'm actually not sure we'll need to distinguish very much between the different kinds of enclosing (or preceding or following or within), so maybe I should let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe "fully" is a better term than "strictly" for all these cases (or maybe not). Hm: what's fancy for "and then some"?--Wendell
What about "completely" or "entirely": "fits completely within", "entirely precedes" etc.? Or "well" – "fits well within", "well precedes" – doesn't sound very technical, but works otherwise. — Jeni 04:29, 15 September 2006 (EDT)
Not bad. What really distinguishes these is that there's extra stuff besides the enclosed range inside the enclosing one. Out on a limb here ... 'gratuitously'? 'superfluously'? The ideal technical term is just fancy enough to be obviously a technical term. These are probably too fancy. In a different direction: "expressly"? --Wendell 10:34, 15 September 2006 (EDT)
Actually I think "expressly" is nice since these cases of enclosure/fits-within are the ones where there's no possibility of tag-order slippage at the boundaries. For example, if the "atomic placement" solution to tag anchoring were to become common (if people find/think tag anchoring ever matters) then "expressly" is fairly expressive. --Wendell
[edit]

Allen relations

It would be interesting to compare these relationships to those defined in

J.Allen. Time and time again : The many ways to represent time. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 6(4):341-355, July 1991 [1]

— Jeni 09:56, 12 October 2006 (EDT) (at DocEng 2006)

The logic is in fact Allen's; I just adjusted the names a bit to fit our spatial rather than temporal environment. --John Cowan 10:43, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

(I had Allen on my list too. Cool! --Wendell 12:26, 18 October 2006 (EDT))

Retrieved from "http://www.lmnl.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Range_relationships"