W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > December 2015

Re: Vocabularies to classify terms

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:57:50 +0530
Message-ID: <CAMXe=SoFtHDKuN6mNg5S31dbn1Y6rd1=FRJvAd08gg1oahgNtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Cc: Alberto Nogales <anogales81@gmail.com>, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
:-)  thank you
normaly use the expressin 'type mismatch' but reification fallacy
sounds about right

actually I think the correct spelling of yak is yuck
(lol)





On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Paola,
>
> //unfortunately, existing categorizasion schemas often mix the two, yak)
>
> I'm good with "yak", but I prefer the more expensive sounding "Reification
> Fallacy" until checks clear, whether the author can even spell Reification
> Fallacy or not :)
>
> The real problem is two cases which look similar: 1) (trivial) Redundant
> Labels (Synonyms) and 2) (not so nice, but extremely popular in the "New
> Economy") the willful Reification Fallacy, aka how to lead and profit by
> getting getting paid in advance of delivery.
>
> Sociotechnical System professionals can manage case 1.  When the blizzard
> hits Madrid this July we'll  need AI equipped robots.
>
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 12/28/15, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: Vocabularies to classify terms
>  To: "Alberto Nogales" <anogales81@gmail.com>
>  Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
>  Date: Monday, December 28, 2015, 8:55 PM
>
>  Alberto
>
>  yr question is about a very
>  generic example
>
>  afaik, such
>  schemas tend to be 'domain' specific, ie, you first
>  need
>  to identify want domain
>  your categories/vocabulary falls under, then
>  you can try to find if
>  such a set exists
>  already in the public domain
>
>  By domain it is intended not only
>  'knowledge domain' (the specific
>  topic you are trying to represent in the cats)
>  but also 'system
>  domain' (the
>  platform/environment the knowledge domain lives in,
>  referring more to the cateogirzation of a
>  structure rather than its
>  contents)
>
>  https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Category:Top-level_categories
>
>  https://wiki.roll20.net/Category:Top-level_categories
>
>  //unfortunately, existing
>  categorizasion schemas often mix the two, yak)
>
>
>  see
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamental_categories
>
>  There are few purely faceted
>  classifications; the best known of these
>  is
>  the Colon Classification of S. R. Ranganathan, a general
>  knowledge
>  classification for libraries.
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_classification
>
>  General top level categories
>  are found in Deweys system, which is the
>  nearest thing
>  I can think of
>  based on yr description
>
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes
>
>  pdm
>
>  On
>  12/29/15, Alberto Nogales <anogales81@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>  > Dear all, I am searching for
>  vocabularies that let me classify terms,
>  > something similar to an upper ontology.I
>  am explaining that with a term
>  > tree.
>  Lets imagine that we have the first node that we will
>  called
>  > "Categories". Then we
>  will hace the main categories in the second level of
>  > the tree. And following we will have
>  subcategories or terms. If a look for
>  > a
>  term it will be classified by its main category.
>  >
>  > 1. Categories
>  >     1.1 Biology
>  >           1.1.1 Cell
>  >           1.1.2 Protein
>  >           ...
>  >           1.1.N Mineral
>  >     1.2 Mathematics
>  >           1.2.1 Equation
>  >            ...
>  >           1.2.N Geometry
>  >
>     1.2.N.1 Triangle
>  >
>  ....
>  >      1.N Physics
>  >             1.N.1
>  Gravity
>  >
>  > So in this
>  case if a want to classify the term gravity, the answer will
>  be
>  > Physics. If I want to classify
>  triangle, the answer will be Mathematics.
>  >
>  > Does anyone knows an
>  ontology, taxonomy, etc similar to this. I need it to
>  > be expressed as rdf, owl or similar.
>  > Thanks.
>  >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 December 2015 04:28:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 December 2015 04:28:21 UTC