>
> 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
>
=============================================================
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