W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

RE: RDF vocabulary definitions - typology

From: Vladimir Rykov <rykov-ont@narod.ru>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:57:19 +0300
To: <m.spork@qut.edu.au>, "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

 If I may intrude into wise discussion.

  I read Russian translation of French book - Theoretical Archeology.

  The guy said there - there are two kinds of classifications - based on
inner and outer features of objects. Then we compare/match these
classifications. The result is a kind of super-classification called

  Vladimir Rykov


-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Leonid Ototsky
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:03 PM
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Fwd: Re[4]: RDF vocabulary definitions

This is a forwarded message
From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
To: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Thursday, November 21, 2002, 3:01:04 PM
Subject: RDF vocabulary definitions

===8<==============Original message text===============
Return-Path: leo@mmk.ru
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:01:04 +0500
From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.32) S/N D26EE466
Reply-To: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
Organization: mmk
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <12625.021121@mmk.ru>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>
Subject: Re[4]: RDF vocabulary definitions
In-reply-To: <001a01c29135$92693da0$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
References: <001a01c29135$92693da0$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Richard,

Thursday, November 21, 2002, 1:11:18 PM, you wrote:

RHM> I read your paper, and I am interested in the "duality principle  in
the classification theory"
RHM> that you mentioned.  Could you tell me what that means?

See an interpretation with some extentions below.
Some principle statements of the Classification Theory (CT)

1. Any Classification System has two Dual parts - "Taxonomy" and "Meronomy".
The first one is
 "external" and connected with ordinary set theory relations (unions,
intersections, hierarchy
 (a subclass of)) etc..
2. The second one is "internal" and connected  with Properties (with some
extended understanding !
- see my paper).
3. CT differes  hierarchy - "combinational" structure of Taxons and
hierarchy - "combinational" structure
 of Properties. There are 4 extrime  points of  combinations of that  two
scales ( Hierarchy- Combinations ,
4. A strict hierarchy of Taxons can be described be pure combinations of
5. The "good sets" ,their members and standard set theory relations are
described by the "Taxonomy", but the dual part "Meronomy" doesn't fix
the sets of objects in principle . Only the "subject areas" with  "open"
object types and  explicitely
defined properties for them. A "good" classification system must have the
both parts but in practice very
often only the taxonomy is used EXPLICITLY . And the Meronomy is "hided" in
the human minds.
The both parts are used in biology (as "Detarminator of the birds
nests" for example).
6. The CT  differs a "subject area" from a "classsification field" .
The first one is "not closed" class  . The last is a "good
set" when the proper "primary" identifications from real objects to
"minimal" taxons are made already!(This is another very impotant theme).
The minimal taxons "substitute" real
objects in any model. It is important to differ  "taxonomical"
properties from more deep "diagnostic" properties . A value of a
taxonomical property may have a complex connection with them.
A direction of further development of the theory  see in my paper.

Best regards,
mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru
Leonid Ototsky,
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru

===8<===========End of original message text===========

Best regards,
mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru
Leonid Ototsky,
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru

-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Murray Spork
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:52 AM
To: Richard H. McCullough; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: RDF vocabulary definitions

Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> That seems backwards.
> Shouldn't you assert the existence of members, even if you can't specify
> all their properties?
> The existence of the class logically depends on the existence of its
> members.

This may be true, but it doesn't refute the fact that you may want to
make statements about a class without actually defining any of its
members. You could, for example, define a class's default properties,
the relationships it has to other classes etc. - without actually
wanting to, or needing to, make statements about members of that class.

> Ios there a mechanism for guaranteeing that members are found?


> I suppose that's been taken into account.
> If so, sounds like a reasonable, iterative, engineering solution.

Yes - I think that is a good way of putting it. In some sense all RDF/S
documents are work-in-progress.

An rdfs:Class with no explicitly defined instances is still valid RDF -
whether or not such a class is useful, I'll leave as a question to
others with more experience.

> I am an engineer, so I appreciate such things.
> Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

No worries.

Murray Spork
Centre for Information Technology Innovation (CITI)
The Redcone Project
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Phone: +61-7-3864-9488
Email: m.spork@qut.edu.au
Web: http://redcone.gbst.com/
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 02:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC