Re: [ontolog-forum] Taxonomies, cuts, and the decimal system

[William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 10, 2013 9:04 PM, "Bruce Schuman" <bruceschuman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> TAXONONOMIC DECOMPOSITION AND DECIMAL PLACES
>
> This is an idea that fascinates me and feels powerful – because it seems “perfectly recursive” and amazingly parsimonious.  To me, this idea feels like Occam’s Razor personified – so tell me why I’m wrong…

Suppose that we were to use a fixed point representation, with the decimal place fixed after the third digit.

We might arbitrarily assign subject of mammals the number 599 ; humans might be assigned the number 599.9, with primates given the number 599.8. 

Beneficial mammals could be assigned 599.163; ungulates 599.6.

But what about ungulates that are beneficial?

Well, your point is well taken, but really, is this not just a matter of not using a single, consistent discriminator for a EACH taxonomy.  In other words, a taxonomy of what?   Genentics, where we have mammals and ungulates,  and  Human Effects, where we have beneficial, harmful, etc.   Two orthogonal taxonomies, or classification schems, for different families of concepts. 

Combinations of classifiers that are part of orthogonal classification schemes need to be accommodated in a different manner (most effectively, in my experience, through composition, but most commonly through "multiple inheritance" (but me, I do not know what "inheritance" means, except in biology and in class-oriented programming languages -- ((though I used to know, before I thought about it much)).

Then, whether one uses numbers, be they decimal or hexadecimal, to identify the different classifiers in each  the sets of classifiers at each level in a hierarchy, or letters, etc., is kind of immaterial, isn't it? 

Except, you never know, at any given point in time, whether you will need to EXPAND a given level.  This gave the dewey decimal system problems.   Moreover, the proximity of numbers implies a proximity of ideas that may be inappropriate.  The conceptual distance between two concepts at the same level should itself be assignable.  There will not always be a set number of distances.  And, when a new concept appears at the same level, you may want to put it in between two already at that level.

It is more extensible and elegant to simply define a partial order with the constraints that turn it into a hierarchy.   This way, the numbers are not adding any constraints, and are not implying any unintended significance.
 

Simon

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)