|To:||edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:35:42 -0400|
I agree with all your comments about this Ed, except that |
1. you seem to be saying that descriptions may be vague, that is, leave it unclear whether something fits the description or no, while classifers aren't. It seems to me that we can take any description, such as "its raining", and lave that as vague or make it as razor sharp as we like.
But then, I am delighted that:
2. you seem to be talking about what I would call natural types, that describe some essense of the concept from the point of view of the given domain. (For example, in your example, hardness might be a property of a mineral, but the best typology comes from crystaline structure, which determines these other attributes. And, as science progresses, the typology changes.
Horray, I say!!!!
This is a critical feature not only of science, but also of every systematic domain of human endeavor, from police work to filmaking.
Only, when I said "classifier", I mearly meant "specification that allows me to determine whether an individual satisfies the specification or not". I did not mean natural type, or what would be a sort in a many sorted logic with a sensible semantics. So, I agree with everything you said when it comes to natural types, and think that they are the essence of an ontology.
Now, IUML conflates a/ natural types as I have described them b/ classifiers, in my sense, c/ the peice of langauge in which the classifier is specified (confusing the specification with the equivelence class of specifications that must apply to the same things -- such as cartesian and polar coordinates for some set of points) and d - a template, like a driver's licence application form, that can be used to instantiate an instance of some artifact (confusing instantiation with 'instance of'" -- while only eggs can instantiate chikens, not chiken 'classes', a bilogist can use a chicken specification to determine if something IS a chicken). UML calls ****all*** of these 4 things by one name: "class". This is a historical reason for our confusions. I think that without a common language that distinquishes between these things, we will continue to talk at cross purposes.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.
_________________________________________________________________ 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, Avril Styrman|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, doug foxvog|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures, Ed Barkmeyer|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] An Earth Science Ontology Dialog - miniseries session-2 - Co-chairs: Gary Berg-Cross & Naicong Li - Thu 2012.09.06, Peter Yim|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|