|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:02:42 -0400|
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:45 PM, John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sure, "undetermined" is a good thing to have.
Is undetermined and your example about what we **know** about the category of the thing, or about whether it *has* a category we don't know yet? "Undetermined" sounds like its about knowledge, to me. "We need more data to decide."
But let's say we are dealing with something that has never been fully or completely classified before. We still may know we are dealling with a new animal, or a new mine3ral, or a new weather phenominon, or a new kind of mulit-dimensional lattice. In other words, it HAS a classification, we just want to classify it more finely. We certainly have to know something about it, to know that there is a thing there to see or contemplate.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Hans Polzer|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, John Bottoms|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, William Frank|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|