The work on granular ontologies [1] touches on these topics. Granules
are "partitions of object space where objects are indistinguishable"
[2]. Specifically, this deals with the problem of viewing concepts
which have vague characteristics, as concrete objects. (01)
To use John's example, one set of properties would be used to
distinguish various members of the Canis genus, and a completely
different set of properties would be used to distinguish various
subspecies of dogs. (02)
In terms of a user/ontologists bias, Brodaric [3] published papers to
describe how a geologist's bias leads to mis-classification of rock
types, and how empirical data helps in correcting such bias. (03)
My MSc. thesis [4] applies these ideas to extend ontology concepts
with empirical data, and derive decision tree rules represented in
OWL. I then use these granular rules for ontology matching. (04)
[1] T. Bittner and B. Smith. Granular partitions and vagueness. In
FOIS ’01: Proceedings of the international conference on Formal
Ontology in Information Systems, pages 309–320, New York, NY, USA,
2001. ACM. (05)
[2] Klinov, P., Mazlack, L.J., Granulating Semantic Web Ontologies, In
Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Granular
Computing, pages 431-434, 2006, IEEE. (06)
[3] M. Brodaric and M. Gahegan. Experiments to examine the situated
nature of geoscientific concepts. Spatial Cognition and Computation:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7(1):61–95, 2007. (07)
[4] B. Gajderowicz. Using decision trees for inductively driven
semantic integration and ontology matching. Master’s thesis, Ryerson
University, 250 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2011.
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero/msc_thesis/ (08)
--
Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
Ryerson University
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero (09)
On 6 July 2011 16:19, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, July 6, 2011 14:38, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
>> 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;
>
> This definition would block many subclasses, unless the property
> is defined as membership in the class.
>
>> 2. Kind is determined by a set of properties;
>
> Is this a useful distinction?
>
>> 3. Natural Kind is determined by a set of lawfully related properties
>> (laws);
>> 4. Natural Genus is the set of things sharing a basic law;
>
> I haven't heard this term except in the context of Linneaen taxonomy.
>
>> 5. Natural Species is the set of things sharing a particular law.
>
> The term has a useful meaning in biology; but what is its use otherwise?
>
>> Many classifications are mostly at the level one, like the five
>> classifications for natural resources, such as land, water, soils, plants,
>> animals, solar power, etc, divided by a single property: origin;
>> renewability, availability, development stage or distribution scope.
>
> There are many gradations of wetlands reaching from soggy ground to
> standing shallow water. A rigid division between land and water is quite
> arbitrary. Fungi used to be classified as plants, but now they are a
> different kingdom.
>
>> A more
>> scientific understanding of resources is asking for reaching higher
>> levels.
>
> Even at this level there are difficulties.
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:45 PM
>> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>>
>>
>>> This forum has been quiet for a while, and I'd like to stir the pot
>>> with a controversial issue.
>>>
>>> Two widely known rigid classifications established a paradigm,
>>> which some people mistakenly consider the norm: the periodic
>>> table in chemistry and the Linneaen taxonomy of living things.
>>> But the rigid boundaries of those categories are the result of
>>> underlying laws of nature that explain why intermediate cases are
>>> impossible (periodic table) and rare (taxonomy of species).
>>>
>>> For physics and chemistry, quantum mechanics implies discrete steps,
>>> which create discrete classifications of elementary particles.
>>> At the next level up, it also implies discrete combinations of
>>> such particles -- combinations of quarks to form baryons (protons
>>> and neutrons) and combinations of atoms to form molecules.
>>>
>>> For biology, discrete molecular operations support the stable
>>> molecules needed for life and the mechanisms for replicating the
>>> huge molecules needed for DNA. But those mechanisms are only
>>> weakly stable -- that leads to random mutations.
>>>
>>> For the next level up, natural selection creates fuzzy boundaries
>>> among interbreeding populations, but crisp boundaries between
>>> isolated populations. For example, look at the sharp distinction
>>> between foxes and wolves, but fuzzy boundaries among dogs. When
>>> humans allow dogs to "do their own thing", the breeds quickly
>>> revert to a generic ur-dog -- which is usually healthier and
>>> more robust than many breeds.
>>>
>>> Some biological classifications are not based on DNA. Examples
>>> are trees and berries. For example, the family Rosaceae includes
>>> rose bushes, apple trees, and raspberries. Biologically, all
>>> berries are fruit, but apples are more likely to be grouped with
>>> oranges as "typical" fruit than with raspberries.
>>>
>>> By height and woodiness, an apple tree is more likely to be
>>> classified with a remotely related spruce tree than with
>>> a rose bush. And many evergreens become bushes or trees
>>> at the whim of some human with a pair of shears.
>>>
>>> There is even a debate in India whether bamboo should be
>>> classified as grass or tree: "Recently there was a controversy
>>> when the union ministry of environment and forests asked states
>>> across India to recognise bamboo as a minor forest produce."
>>>
>>> See http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Bamboo
>>>
>>> In general, what makes any classification rigid is some *law*,
>>> which could be a law of nature or some human rule. Since it's
>>> a lot easier to change human laws, such classifications are
>>> likely to change with culture, technology, or fads.
>>>
>>> Summary: Fuzzy boundaries are the norm in most classifications.
>>> Whenever a boundary seems to be sharp, look for some axiom, law,
>>> principle, or convention that creates the distinction. Those
>>> laws are more fundamental than any grouping by "similarity".
>>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>>> John Sowa
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> =============================================================
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> =============================================================
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|