Dear Doug, (01)
> > SF = Sedimentary Facies
> >
> > R= Rock
>
>
> > Each SF is an R
> > Each SF is a proper part of some R
> > Each SF has a boundary
> > Each boundary that is a boundary of an SF is visible
>
> Wouldn't SF have a boundary with the part of R that is not
> also part of SF? (02)
MW: Not necessarily, part of the boundary of the SF at least could be part
of the boundary for the R.
>
> This does not indicate that SF is visually different from
> the rest of R. (03)
MW: It is the boundary that is visually different, not necessarily the SF
itself.
>
> SF would be a "connected proper part" of R, not just a proper part. (04)
MW: Agreed. (05)
Regards (06)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (07)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (09)
|