[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Rough Sets

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:37:37 -0800
Message-id: <20110119023740.B77FB138CF1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi John, Tara, Chris, comments below:




Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2


-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:10 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Rough Sets


Rich, Tara, and Chris,


I agree with Chris about the use of the term 'class' among logicians.

Although I like logic, I don't believe that logicians (or anybody else)

have the right to assign a technical meaning to a common word and expect

anybody else to use it (especially when it's used for a rather esoteric

distinction that most people are completely unaware of).


When I find words that are overloaded with too many common meanings,

I prefer to ignore them, and I would only use them in a technical

sense as part of a longer phrase.  That is one reason why I avoid

the word 'class'.  Unfortunately, there are too many popular computer

languages that adopted that term -- therefore, I have to use it when

talking about those languages.


Agreed - a good description of how most people use the word in context.



> I prefer the type definition that is static, fixed in time.

> That applies if the class type is defined as a plurality of instances

> of the type definition, with optional class properties defined for

> association with the class definition as well.


Two problems with that definition:  (1) that's not how the word is

used in Java and OWL; (2) the number of instances may be large or

infinite, and there is no way to specify all of them except by

giving some rule or description for recognizing them.


Re (1): Java has a different semantics for "class", I agree.  The Delphi definition might have been migrated into dot net, though I have not checked, since the same architect was fully involved with designing both.  


That is why a type is usually specified by some rule or description

that can be used to recognize instances.  That is an intensional

definition that is independent of any change in the world, real

or possible.




Types in Delphi include the basics (integer, Boolean, ..) and combiners made from an _expression_ of array, record and class.  The "basic" type Class is a combiner that specifies slots for methods, properties, virtual, overloaded, the usual suspects.  


As for RECOGNIZING instances, every instance has a known class derivation line from a type statement, so it isn’t necessary to calculate that – the compiler knows it at symbol binding time. 


The more general issue of RECOGNIZING instances isn’t really applicable to program specifications.  It is more applicable to data mining and text mining where patterns are hypothesized in attempts to discover a “definition”, much like Yorick Wilks’ paper on Preference Semantics discussed hypothetical patterns of words and their preferences for other words as alternative patterns.  For that, see my patent 7,209,923 which describes the process of discovering context within databases.  


The URL to that patent is attached to this email.



Attachment: Patent-7-209-923-B1.PDF.url
Description: Binary data

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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>