Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at texoma.net> wrote:

> I have yet to see anything I prefer to what Cees has offered.
 
> I don't think it is required that we have the most precise topological 
> descriptions.

No, but I think it would be good to have names that make it easy to get
a mental handle on.  For that reason, I am not in favor of 'cardinal' or
even of 'core'->'magma'->'mantle', as cute as they may be, nor of
'shell' because of the burden of other meaning it carries.  

'Core' and 'base' fail because it is hard to grasp (and retain) which
means which!  That was the main point I was trying to make earlier. 
Someone objected to 'kitchen sink' on the basis that not everyone would
know what it meant.  However, 'kitchen sink' is a good example of a name
that /communicates/.  It may take explaining /once/ to someone what it
means, but the meaning will stick with him forever.  For 'core' and
'base', at least /I/ would constantly be asking "now, which is which?".

> The proposed terms are reasonable and understandable by 
> anyone who desires to understand.

I disagree.  

> The simple definitions provided are comprehensible.

Yes, the definitions are comprehensible, and if the full definitions
were used /in place of/ the terms 'base' and 'core' (or was it 'core'
and 'base' ;) ) I don't think there would be any confusion.  The point,
however, is to have terms that communicate and serve as mental shortcuts
for the full definitions.

To illustrate, let's take two names that are not merely neutral like
'core' and 'base' (neutral in the sense that they do not imply a clear
ordering), but that imply the opposite: 'full' could be the name for the
concept that comes after 'kernel' and 'mini' could be the name for the
concept that comes after 'full'.  Then we would have
'kernel'->'full'->'mini'.  Yet, they could be given perfectly good
definitions that would be "understandable by anyone who desires to
understand", but the names would be a constant source of confusion. 
'Base' and 'core' are bad for the same reason, they just are not as
extreme.


-- Frank