Re: [ontolog-forum] a skill of definition - "river"

[Александр Шкотин <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike,

 

I think next generation has possibility to read m-w.com formal edition,

with adjusted formal definitions for  advanced human beings, robots and agents of sir TBL,

instead of 10000+ ontologies of http://swoogle.umbc.edu/

 

Alex

 

Context:
This is why I think the Protege model that was shown is mistaken in
trying to make something (the stretch) a part of the definition of what
it is to be a river, when that thing is arbitrary and capable of
infinite varieties of definition. The stretch of a river is not a part
of the river in the way that a part of a pump is a part of a pump. If
one were to try to bodge this in some way, one would at least have to
define a minimum unit in which stretches can be measured. Otherwise,
like the coastline of Britain, it would be infinite.

So I would suggest that a part of something may or may not be a necceary
part of the definition of what it is to be that thing. However, one
should distinguish between arbitrary human descriptions that range over
a thing, and interconnected parts that are themselves coherent things
like washers, impellers and the like. I guess this impinges on the
earlier conversation about systems, in that a river is not a system of
stretches, whereas a pump is a system of pump parts.

Mike

Александр Шкотин wrote:
>
> [MB]
>
> According to that definition the Okavango is not a river.
>
> <AS>
>
> I think it's better to ask the author of definition. If you see
> Okavango as a counterexample.
>
> I can do it, but I don't know Okavango;)
>
> Anyway there is a chance to make definition better, or to get more
> about a topographical point of view;)
>
> [MB]
>
> So it is a good example around the issues. Are stretches really "Parts"
>
> of a river for example?
>
> I guess it's possible to set out too many characteristics of something,
>
> rather than just those things which, by virtue of being true of an
>
> individual, make it a member of that class of thing.
>
> <AS>
>
> You are right about "characteristics", but parts are very important,
> and for many artificial (and simple natural) things they give definition.
>
> This is the case with some mixtures of molecules we buy to eat
> (sometimes they wrote these parts on the envelope;) and all
> thechnological things, when we define a thing (or process)
> independently or as part of.
>
> Have a look at definition in "description" field for "pump":
>
> http://rdl.rdlfacade.org/data?info=http%3A%2F%2Frdl.rdlfacade.org%2Fdata%23R20735180747
>
>
> and eliminating unnecessary loops...:
>
> "A physical object that is a driven piece of equipment in which energy
> is either constantly or periodically added to an amount of liquid in
> order to increase the pressure required for the process of moving
> liquid in determinate direction."
>
> Do we have a formal language for this kind of statements? - Yes and
> not one. For ex. RDF may syntactically "eat" everything, especially
> with reification technique.
>
> Do we have inference rules (may I say "Figures of the Syllogism";) for
> this language to prove this kind of lemma: "Pump P1 cannot lift water
> on 10 meters."?
>
> - I don't know. But on my knowledge, DL-reasoner, for ex., has only
> two services: subsumption checking and to check belongness.
>
> Then we need a lot of logical axioms to reduce different kind of
> inference rules to these two services.
>
> Well, in math-logic modus ponens is enough somehow. But it more
> reminds Sheffer operation.
>
> So, where Linguist stops with all broadly used meanings discovered and
> defined, Logician begins clarifying definitions and discovering axioms
> and inference rules.
>
> what do you think?
>
> But back to "river".
>
> for me informal definition as #1a at
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/river
>
> " a natural stream of water of usually considerable volume."
>
> sound valuable to begin with, but we just should keep in mind that
> usually informal definitions are overlaped.
>

> like with this one (following m-w.com <http://m-w.com>): brook =

> creek#2 == "a natural stream of water normally smaller than and often
> tributary to a river"
>
> But good news is that a number of sub-definitions about natural stream
> of water is fixed and small;)
>
> Alex
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)