On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, September 26, 2012 08:53, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> On 10 september 2012 at 20:41 doug foxvog wrote:
>> On Thu, September 6, 2012 16:39, Andries van Renssen wrote:
>> > Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
>> > classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things.
>> This is a rule in your system. Kingsley asked "what is not to like"
>> about this text snippet.
>> The lack of requirement that kinds of things need not
>> be classified is something that falls in this category since the lack
>> of classification limits the type of reasoning that can be performed.
> [AvR] The statement that "all individual things 'shall be' classified" is
> indeed a rule. Semantically it is not a necessity in Formal English,
> because expressions can be interpreted without it.
> However, I think it is a valuable rule, because it adds possibilities
> for verification of the correctness (consistency) of expressions.
> Therefore, the rule is intended as a (strong) recommendation.
Agreed.
[AvR] O.K. We agree that it is a valuable rule to classify all individual things. I assume that you are aware that this includes the classification of all (individual) relations.
In Gellish Formal English up to now we apply this rule as a requirement, in order to enable verification of the completeness of an information model, because otherwise it is not certain that verification of possible requirements for things of a kind and verification of compliance with definitions can be performed. However, there is an argument that states that also in a formal language, users are responsible for the correctness of their expressions and they may be convinced that there are no requirements nor definitions that are not met, so that such a verification is not required. Furthermore, humans may interpret classification from names or from relations with other things and properties, whereas it is not always necessary that computers can also derive that from the expressions. On that basis it can be argued that the rule in a kind of Formal English to classify every individual thing can be a recommendation instead of a requirement. Do you agree with the latter?
The statement "all things 'shall be' classified" is a stronger
rule. IMO, it is valuable because it adds more possibilities for
verification of the correctness (consistency) of expressions than
the more limited rule that you state.
[AvR] I agree that it is also valuable to apply a rule to classify all relations between kinds of things.
But when kinds are arranged in a taxonomy (subtype-supertype hierarchy), then they inherit their classification as ‘being a kind’ from the top of the hierarchy. I see only a few occasions where explicit classification of kinds provide possibilities for additional verification. Please provide evidence by giving some examples of such additional verifications.
Because of the above, I think that it is not justified to introduce a general rule that every kind shall be classified by a kind of kinds.
In natural languages we also classify mainly individual things and classify kinds only rarely.
Try to imagine a thing you could not classify at all. I just can't. Please describe such a thing you have imagined to me.
[AvR] The question is not whether things CAN be classified, but whether in a formal language they all should be classified.
[AvR] The question is also not whether kinds shall be defined or related to other kinds, because the specialization relation(s) and the relations that form the definition model are precisely the relations that make the classification relations of kinds in most cases superfluous.
Is it a living thing, or an inaimate thing? Won't you be able to tell at some point, if not yet? Is it a solid or a gas or a liquid or a combination? Is it possible that you can recognize it as a thing, any yet are, in principle, not able to tell what kind of thing it is?
here is a thing. How do you know it is one thing, and not two, or a half a thing?
What does this tell you about this "rule."