|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:06:58 -0400|
2. Organizing everything into domains.
1. casting everything as a noun.
Library science is a key source of classification knowledge. And classification by a given description is what ontology and 'inheritance' are really about, I believe. Ranganathan's faceted analysis, mentioned by John Sowa, was an important part of my breaking away from 'class inheritance hierarchies.' In 1989, we even used a 2-D icosohedron picture on which to depict as many as 10 facets of a thing.I think there are only two things missing in your account below:
It is generally a good organizational practice to have at least two fundamental categories of things -- if everything is one meta-category of thing, the category serves no purpose. More generally, if everything is an X, being an X is a tautology, and it carries no information to say it is an X. I have found it most useful to cast every thing either as a relation, a role in a relation, or an atomic individual (also recasting relations and propositions as higher order individuals in higher order expressions).
Domains are the most important way to classify things, butThere are classification schemes that are domain independent. These are the sort of abstract categories one finds in some 'upper' ontologies, and the kinds of categories found in case grammars and philosophy: agent, efficient cause, ...
(It is not clear if this holds for semantic contentful descriptors. For example, if we have a classification of things by their colors, one would think this would apply to all macro-physical things, whether automobiles or stars or birds or paints. But, supporting your point, astronomers and auto enthusiasts have their own separate color schemes. (Never heard of a star that was British Racing Green.) Similarly, sizes of sub atomic particles are a very different thing from sizes of dogs. However, 'size' itself, as a concept, belongs someplace in some classification scheme for concepts. One that is domain independent.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Frank Guerino <Frank.Guerino@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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:||[ontolog-forum] Are Classifications nothing more than Indexes?, Frank Guerino|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Are classifications nothing more than Indexes?, John F Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Are Classifications nothing more than Indexes?, Frank Guerino|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Are classifications nothing more than Indexes?, John F Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|