--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Meynell
<kevin@m...> wrote:

>
> >i just dont see how you can seriously maintain it is the

ownership of an

> >iso diglyph
>
> I don't, but I was just pointing out (albeit not multipointing out

;-))

hahaha
vive la difference & la compagnie
& more below

> that if one wishes to be strictly correct about such things,

territorial

> identities should be taken in consideration. Therefore, I would

say CA-FR

> should really be CA-PM, and CA-DK should really be CA-GL.

ok good point in any case
tho i believe it only comes into play for us with french guiana
at brfrsr
or as you would say brgfsr
so we can easily deal with it either way

but in point of our cumulative hierarchical bp subdivisional theory
which is admittedly artificial
because based on topology rather than politics
& nowhere as homogeneous as it pretends to be
nevertheless
in the name of uniformity & comprehensiveness
a whole is nothing but the sum of its parts
regardless of how politically miscellaneous

so pm is inclusive within fr rather than distinct from it
& gl is inclusive within dk rather than distinct from it
etc etc

or at least thats pretty much how weve been doing it til now
given our orientation

>
> >if i had to come up with a better indicator
> >i would pick ownership of a seat at the united nations instead
>
> You could actually take ISO 3166-1, exclude all the overseas

territories

> and Antarctica, and you'd have a pretty definitive list of

countries.

yes that is the neatest formulation i have seen yet

does it equal our same 193 entities

>
> Cheers,
>
> Kevin Meynell