On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:48 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > > > governed by this in R478: > > > > > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously > > >> and clearly specifying the action > > > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as a > > > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines what > > > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation > announcement > > > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. > > > > > > Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each > > property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than the > > creation and specifications being separate? > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > > I don't believe that's right. I think the condition should be that the > mandatory attributes are separate from the optional ones. So: "I create a > proposal with the following title and text, and specify the following other > attributes" would probably be good enough text for non-atomicity. I think the "and" implies that the two actions are linked. It would be useful, however, to know how strong a linkage different forms (participles vs conjunctions, "and" vs "and then", etc) create. -Aris -Aris > >
