On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Judge Murphy's Arguments: > >> > >> I interpret "modify" as limited to changing an existing value, not > >> initializing an aspect that previously lacked a value. > >> > > > > Isn't this in direct conflict with a judgement about a recent scam > > failure, where "modify" or a synonym was found to include initialization? > > Can't remember the details but does this ring a bell with anyone else? > > 2945 found that "change" includes "remove", but is silent on whether > it includes "add". You're changing the entity, but can you be said > to "change" a value if there was no previous value? (Admittedly my > interpretation is not obviously correct, hence the fix proposal.)
Actually I disagree and think it's a pretty direct analogy: 2945 judgement states 'However, semantically, it's most reasonable to state that setting an adoption index to null/no adoption index is in fact a change; and more generally it's worth stating as a precedent that removing a property from an entity does in fact count as a "change" of the property.' I don't see how setting something from Existing (Value) to Null can be considered a change while setting something from Null to Existing (Value) can be considered NOT a change. -G.
