Open curiousdannii-testing opened 2 years ago
557058:4c095ffd-6d6f-47ce-9e73-77c613347b86:
Comment by hakim :
Switching the relationship from M-1 to 1-M fixes it:
Ownership relates one animal to various things.
The verb to belong to means the reversed ownership relation.
The verb to own means the ownership relation.
Thing A is owned by Mr Socks.
Thing B is a thing. It is owned by Mr Socks.
Thing C is a thing which is owned by Mr Socks.
[OR the following
Thing A belongs to Mr Socks.
Thing B is a thing. It belongs to Mr Socks.
Thing C is a thing which belongs to Mr Socks. ]
This behaves as expected
Reported by : hakim
Description :
All the declarations in the minimal reproduction should be equivalent.
We declare Thing A without a kind, only a relationship.
We declare Thing B with a kind. Then we set the relationship in a new sentence.
We declare Thing C with a kind and relationship as sub-clause.
Grammatically I think Thing B and Thing C are equivalent.
When you run the source, you see that Thing C is also an "animal". e.g. Inform has determined that Mr Socks is owned by Thing C, and therefore the latter is an animal. Running `relations` confirms the mistake.
Steps to reproduce :
Additional information :
If you substitute a built-in relation, this works as expected, e.g.:
Thing A is worn by Mr Socks.
Thing B is a thing. It is worn by Mr Socks.
Thing C is a thing worn by Mr Socks.
All the Things are now worn by Mr Socks and not the other way around.
imported from: [Mantis 2061] When declaring a thing with kind, relationships declared in sub-clause are reversed.