W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Thing and Class

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:37:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CD20BAD5FF13419D8014BB46F31D8AE1@rhm8200>
To: "Jack Krupansky" <jack@basetechnology.com>
Cc: "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>, "cyclify austin" <cyclify-austin@yahoogroups.com>

I want to banish Class to the bookkeeping context, where it belongs.

When two classes are equivalent, it means they have the same members,
but different definitions -- which means they are in different contexts.

When you merge the two contexts together, you get confusion.
Which class are we talking about now -- Class or Thing?
Which definition are we talking about now -- Class or Thing?

The class "cup" abstracts all properties of its individual member "cups".
That includes how a cup is used, what a cup is made of, etc.
    cup subClassOf Thing;
includes all those properties.  We might call this cup-the-Thing
But when you say
    cup type Class;
you're in a different context - talking about cup-the-Class.
That's what I refer to as the bookkeeping context.

If you insist on dragging Class into the Thing context,
then I recommend doing it in the form of a ClassSet.
    cup ismem ClassSet;
    ClassSet type Set;
    Set  subClassOf  Thing;

Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Krupansky" <jack@basetechnology.com>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Thing and Class


> But... if you get rid of Class, doesn't it then follow that subClass is no 
> longer defined or of comparable meaning?
>
> Is there a subThing that is "class-like"? I would imagine that subThing is 
> a decomposition of a Thing into the subThing's of which it is composed, 
> which is not "class-like" categorization, although it has some 
> reductionist appeal. But, a purely reductionist analysis does not look 
> outwards to levels of abstraction for how a Thing is externally viewed, 
> perceived, and used. Two "cups" would not have Class "cup" that recognizes 
> an abstraction about how a cup is used, but would be classified as to 
> their material and form of construction as Thing's.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
> To: "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "KR-language" 
> <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>; "cyclify austin" 
> <cyclify-austin@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:59 PM
> Subject: Thing and Class
>
>
>>
>> Since  Thing  subClassOf  Class;
>> and     Class  subClassOf  Thing;
>> it follows that  Thing  equivalentClass  Class;
>>
>> So, I say:  get rid of Class!
>>
>> Dick McCullough
>> Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
>> mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
>> knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
>> knowledge haspart proposition list;
>> http://mKRmKE.org/
>>
>>
>>
>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 23:40:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:24 GMT