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

[Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx>]

This discussion on classifying things reminds me of the discussion thread back about 4 years ago on Models and Confounded models.  I wrote as part of this discussion this about biological classifications based on unique properties etc. as Doug noted earlier:

 

>> 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.

Here's what I noted in the earlier discussion on Models of reality.

 

>(G B-C) I've suggested that there are alternative biological models that serve
as the basis for biological "reality".  I think that this has
implications for what the ontology represents (independent of the
model-theoretic underlying the ontology). Here is an example of what
troubles me.    (05)

Recent  Linneus' hierarchical classification system, have (generally)
adopting five kingdoms of living organisms - as discussed in Purves et
al., Life: The Science of Biology, 4th Edition, by Sinauer Associates
(www.sinauer.com). In this view Viruses, are not considered living. Ok
leave that aside for this discussion it's an explicit assumption.    (06)

But recent studies suggest that there might be a sixth Kingdom, the
Archaea.     (07)

As discussed in the Wikipedia:     (08)

"currently in textbooks from the United States, a system of six kingdoms
(Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protoctista, Archaea and Prokaryota), while
in British and Australian textbooks, five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae,
Fungi, Protist, Bacteria) are used."    (09)

Above these in the  (also in Wikipedia ) there is a simple phylogenetic
representation of three Domains of life: Archaea, Bacteria (Eubacteria),
and Eukaryota -    (010)

But in the hierarchical classification system (also in Wikipedia) there
are 2 "superkingdoms" and 4 kingdoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)#Two_superkingdoms.2C__Fou
r_kingdomsAssociates     (011)

Now, if I had relied on earlier biological understanding I would have a
different taxonomy of life, kingdoms etc.  No superkingdoms at all.     (012)

Did this earlier view reflect biological reality?  Which of the
alternatives discussed above reflects reality now?      (013)

Gary Berg-Cross

SOCoP

Knowledge Strategies

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:40 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


_________________________________________________________________
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

--

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.  

gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx     

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross

NSF INTEROP Project  

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816

SOCoP Executive Secretary

Knowledge Strategies    

Potomac, MD

240-426-0770

_________________________________________________________________
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)