[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:09:27 -0500
Message-id: <A19607CE-065B-40AF-A4C2-EF3EA37658E8@xxxxxxxx>
On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:38 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
> John wrote: "And a warning:  Unless you can find an immutable law of nature
> that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
> foundation for a "standard ontology".
> Agree. Here are five methodogical rules from the standard ontology:
> 1. Class is determined by a single property;
> 2. Kind is determined by a set of properties;    (01)

Unless you give us a theory of properties, this is not a useful distinction.  
It seems at least to follow that every Class is a Kind.  For if class C is 
determined by property P, then kind K is determined by set {P}.  And every Kind 
is a class if, for any set S of properties, it follows that there is a property 
that is the conjunction of S.  Do you have a theory of properties on which 
these apparent implications do, or do not, follow?    (02)

> 3. Natural Kind is determined by a set of lawfully related properties (laws);    (03)

What makes two properties "lawfully related"?    (04)

> 4. Natural Genus is the set of things sharing a basic law;    (05)

What is it for two things to "share a basic law"?  And what makes a law basic?    (06)

> 5. Natural Species is the set of things sharing a particular law.    (07)

What is it for two things to "share a particular law"?    (08)

Chris Menzel    (09)

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    (010)

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