> Rich wrote: "Suppose there is a universe of "PRIMITIVE" properties..."
This is all the science is to pursue, to discover the universe of
basic/simple/primitive properties as a universal hierarchy of properties,
generating the standard pyramid of classes of entities.
Azamat
PS: To extend the idea, go for basic states or fundamental
properties/quantities, like in QM the quantum numbers are used to define a
quantum system. So the question is how many states/properties are needed to
describe any given thing or system.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>; "'John F. Sowa'" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> <ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Christopher Menzel"
> <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>; "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
>
>
>> Doug, Azamat, John,
>>
>> Let me propose an alternative that uses some of Azamat's ideas and some
>> of
>> Doug's responses.
>>
>> Suppose there is a universe of "PRIMITIVE" properties, i.e. those that
>> are
>> terminal, not decomposable into other properties. 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. 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.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> Any further specification of how those properties are combined or grouped
>> is
>> part of an arbitrary (read subjective) classification theory.
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
> (01)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (02)
|