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 13:51:55 +0300
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, <m.spork@qut.edu.au>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PMEKLEDHHNBCANDPBMKGGEHBCAAA.rykov-ont@narod.ru>

    Mr McCullough - you can find this book by its name. I forgotten the
author. Not earlier then 80s.

   To the matter.

   I explain how I used his idea. I had a corpus of texts classified into
genres etc. It was outer classification. I took these texts and counted with
computer their innner properties (the number of pronouns, etc) and I got a
cluster classification tree. Then I compared it with outer classification.
It was very informative. The French guy said that only this final
classification is typology.

The Author wrote (he is arche...ist) - "we dig remnants  ..." Actually they
did the same. They try to classify what they digged in various places as if
they do not know their origin. Then they compare their classification with
outer classification - from which places the pieces of pots, jewelry were
found. It was really remarkable and brought them lots of info.

 I did understand him - but I am not sure you'll understand my awful
English.

 Vladimir Rykov
PhD in Computational Linguistics
rykov.narod.ru

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Richard H. McCullough [mailto:rhm@cdepot.net]
  Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:10 PM
  To: Vladimir Rykov; m.spork@qut.edu.au; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
  Subject: Re: RDF vocabulary definitions - typology


  I would have to hear some more details to be sure, but it sounds like the
book is talking about intensive (properties of entities) and extensive
(entities) classifications.  These two aspects of entities are really
inseparable, so if you try to separate them you are apt to get nonsensical
results.
  If this "typology" is something else, I'd like to hear more about it.
  ============
  Dick McCullough
  knowledge := man do identify od existent done
  knowledge haspart list of proposition

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Vladimir Rykov
    To: m.spork@qut.edu.au ; Richard H. McCullough ; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
    Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:57 PM
    Subject: RE: RDF vocabulary definitions - typology


    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
    typology.

      Vladimir Rykov

     rykov.narod.ru

    -----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 ,
     Taxons-Properties).
    4. A strict hierarchy of Taxons can be described be pure combinations of
    Properties.
    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.
    ETC
    A direction of further development of the theory  see in my paper.

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


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



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



    -----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?

    No

    > 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 05:49:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT