On Thu, July 7, 2011 0:58, Rich Cooper said: (01)
> Comments interspersed below,
>
> -Rich (02)
[extract]
> DF:] The issues in the database world are different from those of the
> ontological world, and implications from one of the fields does not
> necessarily apply to the other. However, i will respond to the database
> comments below, from an ontological perspective. (03)
> RC:] Surely you are not implying that databases are not ontologically
> expressive; (04)
I am not implying that. I meant what i carefully said. Different fields
have different perspectives and issues. That in no way implies that
there is no connection between them. (05)
> ...
> RC:] Perhaps you prefer to think of the universe as including classes
> AS WELL AS properties. (06)
Yes, i prefer to do so. Of course, any class is equivalent in extension
to a unary predicate. The concept of Class in an ontological sense
carries a lot of meaning and implication -- all of which can be mapped
to information about unary predicates. (07)
>
> RC:] ... why do you believe that a database of such properties and
> classes is different in ontologies versus in the database world? (08)
A database is already in the database world. 8)# (09)
I did not say that databases can not use ontologies. I meant that
the different fields were based on different ideas. (010)
While databases can certainly be based on ontological principles, they
can also merely use them, or even ignore them. Databases treat columns
different than cell contents, while in an ontological sense either could
express properties. An ontology which has higher-arity relations can
treat a single usage of a ternary predicate as an object, while a from a
database perspective, it would often be expressed as a set of cells in a
single row. (011)
This is not a criticism of database technology, merely a recognition that
different fields can handle the same situations in different ways. (012)
I leave the full discussion below. It seems not to have been shared with
the ontolog forum. (013)
-- doug (014)
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (015)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: doug foxvog [mailto:doug@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:46 PM
> To: Rich Cooper
> Cc: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; 'John F. Sowa';
> ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Christopher Menzel; AzamatAbdoullaev
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>
>
>
> On Wed, July 6, 2011 17:29, Rich Cooper said:
>> Doug, Azamat, John, (016)
>> Let me propose an alternative that uses some of Azamat's ideas and some
>> of Doug's responses. (017)
>> Suppose there is a universe of "PRIMITIVE" properties, i.e. those that
>> are terminal, not decomposable into other properties. (018)
> DF:> There is not necessarily a unique set of such properties. Consider
> just a universe of three property dimensions. Any three orthogonal
> property
> vectors can be chosen -- even spatially one has the option of three
> straight
> non-colinear vectors, polar coordinates with an arbitrary axis, or one of
> an
> infinite number of cylindrical coordinate systems -- with no purely
> logical
> reason to prefer one set of "primitive" properties over another.
>
>
>
> RC:] Yes, I agree that is correct, and the choice of which properties to
> make terminal for the universe is indeed arbitrary, i.e., subjectively
> chosen. Many people choose properties in their classification universe
> based on the chooser's view of what is important. For a current example,
> the individual Democrats and Republicans are now viewing the US debt
> crisis
> in completely different ways, and classifying revenue improvement tactics
> by
> their choices of what is important to each individual in each party.
> Their
> choices lead to very different classes, and very different assignments of
> individuals to classes.
>
>
>
>
>
> DF:] Someone may select A, B, & C as three primitive properties to span a
> space, but another person might select A&B, B&C, and C&~A as primitive
> properties. Each "primitive" property in one set can be decomposed into
> an
> expression of the "primitive" properties of the other set. Any situation
> that can be defined as a combination of the properties of one set can be
> defined as a combination of the properties of the other set.
>
>
>
> RC:] While that statement is absolutely correct, it is relatively easy in
> most engineering situations to choose a coordinate system so that a
> proposed
> system can be analyzed in detail and the analyses communicated to other
> members of the teams. In software engineering specifically, the
> requirements sentences are worked through in meetings designed to
> establish
> either consensus among the requirements specifiers as to the coordinate
> system, or multiple coordinate systems for comparing various design
> concepts
> to be explored based on the requirement coordinate choices.
>
>
>
> One good example of what you described is from smart vehicle design.
> Consider a radar sensor in the front bumper of a car and a video camera on
> the roof. Some of the objects found by the radar have to be translated
> into
> a coordinate system that can also fuse the objects detected by the camera.
> This way, the designers can organize a database of object tracks which can
> be fused to establish which detected objects in one sensor are in fact the
> same objects recognized in the other sensor. This fusion need is usually
> handled in systems in exactly this way, and illustrates how the detection
> and tracking of objects depends on multiple perceptions of the same
> objects,
> using different independent sensors.
>
>
>
>> That is, there are terminal and nonterminal properties,
>
>> as there are terminal and nonterminal symbols in an ontology,
>
>> or a language, or a group of logical expressions,
>
>> as Chris alluded to.
>
>
>
> DF:] There can certainly be a set of terminal and non-terminal properties
> in
> an ontology. But that does not mean that the universe described by that
> ontology necessarily decrees which properties must be terminal and which
> should not be. The selection can be up to the ontologist.
>
>
>
> RC:] That is absolutely correct; the perceiver is biased, or the
> requirements agreed to by a team of engineering perceivers is biased, and
> there is no way around it for most practical situations.
>
>
>
>> This should be easy to agree on for most, but is still
>
>> the context of whatever metrics have been chosen to separate the
>> entities
>
>> into classes.
>
>>
>
>> I'll call them the P[i] properties.
>
>>
>
>> Classification is the process of choosing (with whatever method you
>> wish)
>
>> unique properties that are to be used in dividing a given sample group
>
>> into classes by the classification scheme.
>
>> I will only use terminal properties
>
>> in the classification scheme, whatever their origin.
>
>
>
>> Then there is some list of such P[i] which serve to make a distinction
>
>> among the samples. That distinction is, by my definition,
>
>> whatever primitive properties separate according the values of each
>> entity
>
>
>> with each property in the chosen list.
>
>
>
> DF:] Are you here defining the primitive properties as those which make a
> distinction among the individuals? Earlier it seemed that you wished
>
> to define as primitive those which distinguished among classes.
>
>
>
> RC:] In my vehicle example, the properties are chosen by the designers who
> specify how the radar and camera algorithms establish separate objects,
> and
> how they assign those objects into classes. For example, an object which
> is
> "approximately" stationary in the database could be another vehicle
> traveling in front or back of the object. Another example; an object
> which
> is stationary with respect to the road is stopped. It might be a lamppost
> (which the vehicle should avoid colliding with at all costs) or a moose
> (which it would be highly preferable not to collide with, but there is
> relatively less danger to the vehicle or its occupants. Therefore objects
> which fit a stationary profile should preferably be avoided, even when
> they
> can be partitioned into specific classes of object kinds (Azamat's word)
> or
> types (my preferred choice). Of course there are intermediate types -
> dogs,
> people, bridges - choose your favorite perceived object type abstraction.
>
>
>
> In my definition, I used "primitive" or "terminal" in the sense of the
> intended application - vehicle trajectory kinematics management. But as
> you
> pointed out, the choice again is subjective. It depends on the
> experience,
> knowledge and perceptions of the requirements and design teams.
>
>
>
>> For example, in a relational database, there are columns which serve
>> this
>
>> purpose, and for which select statements can be written that refer to
>
>> exactly those properties.
>
>
>
> DF:] The clearest such property in a relational database would be the
> ID_Number property. That uniquely defines each entity, but is not very
> useful for ontological purposes.
>
>
>
> RC:] Every detected object should indeed have some unique identifier
> assigned and stored in the database at detection, whether the identifier
> is
> stored as one or as a concatenated plurality of such columns. But the
> identifier assigned by the radar perceiver is clearly different from that
> of
> the camera perceiver, which acquires different kinds of information from
> the
> radar profile.
>
>
>
> Further classification of objects detected by radar can iteratively be
> done
> by partitioning the detected objects according to yet other rules, each
> rule
> represented as a cluster of columns and value sets. Thus the database can
> have abstract rules stored in rows of certain relations, and interpreted
> by
> the classification algorithm (for easy discussion, I choose the FCA
> algorithm as an example).
>
>
>
> So a single column might be adequate for identifying the set of all unique
> radar object instances currently detected in the database. However, that
> single column is inadequate for further classification (subclasses) of the
> objects which map into radar recognition. The camera might even see
> things
> the radar cannot see, so there must be yet other assigners (the camera
> interpreter) of object instances and still other assigners of subclass
> properties and values for other types of optically detected objects.
>
>
>
> DF:] The issues in the database world are different from those of the
> ontological world, and implications from one of the fields does not
> necessarily apply to the other. However, i will respond to the database
> comments below, from an ontological perspective. (019)
> RC:] Surely you are not implying that databases are not ontologically
> expressive; John posted a number of descriptions on this list to show
> clearly that SQL practices every FOL form that can be expressed. (020)
> For example, the classification schemes themselves are developed in
> testbeds
> which collect large numbers of samples. Engineers then use the samples to
> distinguish among the test example objects, and to postulate and test the
> known classes based on (arbitrarily) selected properties drawn from that
> universe of properties. In the vehicle example, it is reasonable that the
> properties detectable by the radar perceiver overlap in some ways, but not
> in others, from properties in the universe which are perceivable by the
> cameras. (021)
>> The group-by clause specifies the precise logical
>> combination of property values to be used in sorting the various
>> entities returned by the select statement. (022)
> DF:] And many such queries would return multiple entities. At some level,
> each query defines a class, but one would not normally consider such
> classes as primitive. (023)
> RC:] You are using the word "primitive" to adjectify that CLASS in your
> above statement, and that adjectification is different from the way the
> word
> "primitive" was used to distinguish among the universe of PROPERTIES.
> Perhaps you prefer to think of the universe as including classes AS WELL
> AS properties.
>
>
>
> Other than that, why do you believe that a database of such properties and
> classes is different in ontologies versus in the database world?
> Databases
> practice FOL in any way you want to construct and interrelate their
> component tables, columns, domains and queries. I don't see why there is
> NECESSARILY a difference. In many simple business accounting
> applications,
> your statement matches practice fairly well. But in engineering
> applications, it doesn't match so well. Perhaps you can explain further
> WHY
> and HOW databases do not encode ontologies.
>
>
>
>> Any further specification of how those properties are combined or
>> grouped
>
>> is part of an arbitrary (read subjective) classification theory.
>
>
>
> Couldn't the selection of the properties to begin with be similarly
>
> arbitrary?
>
>
>
> -- doug f
>
>
>
> Yes; there always more than one way to skin a cat - any cat, even a lion
> or
> a tomcat. The lion might require different preparations in the software
> than the tomcat does, and hence different property choices. One is
> dangerous; the other probably isn't, for example.
>
>
>
> Thanks for continuing an intriguing discussion - we may actually yet be
> getting somewhere with relating subjective perception to ontologies.
> Please
> continue, si vous plait.
>
>
>
> -Rich
>
>
>
>> JMHO,
>
>> -Rich
>
>>
>
>> Sincerely,
>
>> Rich Cooper
>
>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
>> 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 doug foxvog
>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:20 PM
>
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>
>>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> =============================================================
>
> 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.
>
> =============================================================
>
>
>
> (024)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (025)
"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.
============================================================= (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
|