W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [SPAM] Re: re:[semanticweb] taxonomy vs ontology?

From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:43:36 +0200
Message-ID: <001301c61a03$9da81420$e00a8c0a@homepc>
To: "leo" <leo@mgn.ru>, <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

Leonid,

Thanks for your comments. Please reread my statements and check again to 
find out any essential differences with your comments, leaving behind for a 
short while all these amusing 'merology', meronomy', etc.

Azamat:
''Ontology classifies things, determines distinctions, and identifies 
entities only with respect to the types of relationships having real 
meanings, such as the part-whole relations, space-relations, time-relations, 
or causal relations.''

''Taxonomy works with formal objects and logical classifications and 
conceptual notions such as used in biological taxonomy, species, genus, 
order, family, etc. ...Taxonomy arranges and orders its domain by logical 
classes and categories with respect to the formal relationships like as [the 
set inclusion relation and the set membership relations].''

Best,
Azamat

PS: I know well Yuli Schreider's works, also i knew him personally when we 
had been at one academic institute. He did many pioneering research in 
formal semantics, cybernetics, informatics reopening now in the West, still 
he never understood the great value of ontology.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leonid Ototsky" <leo@mgn.ru>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>; <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: re:[semanticweb] taxonomy vs ontology?


> Azamat,
> Before describing the "taxonomy vs. ontology" problem suppose it will be
> helpful to look at the Duality of "Taxonomy-Meronomy" :-) .
> Some principle statements of the Classification Theory (CT) which was 
> exploard in Russia in the 70th of
> the XX (http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/schreidr/schreidr.html) are:
>    3.1. 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..
>    3.2. The second one is "internal" and connected  with Properties/Parts 
> structure (archetype).
>    3.3. CT differes from a hierarchy - combinational structure of Taxons 
> and
> hierarchy - combinational structure  of Properties. There are 4 extreme 
> points of  combinations of that
> two scales ( Hierarchy/Combinations of Taxons, Hierarchy/Combinations of 
> Properties).
>    3.4. A strict hierarchy of Taxons can be described by pure combinations 
> of
> Properties.
>    3.5. "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  explicitly 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 "hiden"
> in  human minds.  The both parts are used in "Determinants" of  biology 
> (for example  "birds nests
> Determinant") but for e-technologies there is a need in much more 
> formalization and structuring of the
> Determinants.
>    3.6. The CT  differs from a "subject area"  or "classsification field" 
> .
> The first one is "not a closed" class  . The last is a "good set" when the 
> proper "primary" identifications
> from real objects to  "minimal" taxons are already defined. The minimal 
> taxons "substitute" real  objects
> in any model. It is important to distinguish  "taxonomical"  properties 
> from  deeper "diagnostic" properties . A value of a  taxonomical property 
> may have a complex connection with them. (not clear!).
> Classifications based on "pure" taxonomy are  widely used and for "upper"
> levels of description with  rigid  hierarchies of taxons. The Meronomy is 
> not widespread
> now .
>
> Best,
> Leonid - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it
>
>
>
>> Neil, David, Yyhong, and other disputants,
>>
>> Robert's statement, ''A taxonomy is for describing species'',
>> looks a most close guess to the point of the matter.
>>
>> To distinguish ontology from taxonomy, above all, one needs to
>> tell apart two basic modes of meaning
>> [or signification for words], known as the first and second
>> imposition of terms [words]; namely:
>> 1. as words signifying things, realities, existences, objects, etc.[ 
>> so-called extension];
>> 2. as words sygnifying just ideas, formal concepts, logical
>> predicates, attributes, etc.[ so-called intension].
>>
>> For instance, in the sentence ''man is a living being'', the
>> subject is used to name a piece of reality, a living being of a
>> certain type, while in the sentence ''man is a human species'', the
>> subject is used in the second intention, symbolizing just a logical
>> classification.
>> This ilpies that [Ontology as a formal representation of
>> reality], the totality of all that exists, operates with the class
>> of words standing for the types of realities (substances, states,
>> events, etc.). Accordingly, ontology classifies things, determines
>> distinctions, and identifies entities only with respect to the types
>> of relationships having real meanings, such as the part-whole
>> relations, space-relations, time-relations, or causal relations.
>>
>> On the contrary, taxonomy works with formal objects and logical
>> classifications and conceptual notions such as used in biological
>> taxonomy, species, genus, order, family, etc. To make it looks real
>> classification, there are talks among biologists about genetic or
>> reproductive boundaries of species, etc. But, by its nature,
>> taxonomy arranges and orders its domain by logical casses and
>> categories with respect to formal relationships like as [the set
>> inclusion relation and the set membership relations].
>>
>> The confusion which instigated this good question of distinction
>> arose for some objective reasons. Most current computational
>> ontologies are not really ontologies, but rather logical
>> classifications organized by formal logical [set theoretical]
>> relationships saying us a little about the real world, but rather
>> something about the creator's personal experience and intuitions. As
>> a bad consequence, by not seeing this essential difference, many
>> current ontologes, both upper are domain, view the entity of
>> relationship as a formal object.
>>
>> So there are a few ontologies as such in computing and
>> programming practice, most are rather formal logical classifications
>> of entities, or taxonomies; while the viable reasoning applications
>> must be based on the models describing real systems as pieces of
>> reality. Full point.
>>
>> PS: Only for OWL developers of 'punning'.
>> Another similar confusion is related with the ambiguity of names,
>> which the last version of OWL 1.1 dubbed as 'punning' (a funny play
>> on words), [when the same name may stand for a class, an indivdiual,
>> or a property, at the same time]. It was a good try, but the real
>> reason of this again consists in the nature of words itself and
>> their modes of signification, which seems to be a closed matter for
>> the authors of the OWL 'meta-modeling'.
>> As amatter of fact, any namespace is distinguished by two types of 
>> naming:
>> I. naming of entities according to their nature, intrinsic
>> properties [intrinsic denomination];
>> II. the namingr with respect with the external relationships in
>> which some thing stands to something else [extrinsic denomination].
>> But this is another matter better to be discussed with the OWL
>> developers.
>>
>> Good wishes to all,
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>> http://www.eis.com.cy
>>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
>> From:  Robert Stevens
>
>> To:wilmering@charter.net ; semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
>
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:48   PM
>
>> Subject: re:[semanticweb] taxonomy vs   ontology?
>
>
>
>> A taxonomy is for describing species. One has to be careful
>> when talking to biologists about ontologies. it was their word first
>> (I   think), but would be interested to hear the contrary. In this
>> sense, a   taxonomy is sort of just the "is-a" hierarchy.
>
>> robert.
>> At 14:12   13/01/2006, Timothy Wilmering wrote:
>
>> Neil -
>>
>> Generally speaking, (and trying to subscribe to the simplified
>> view of things) a taxonomy is an "isa" hierarchy of relations
>> between things     or classes of things...
>>
>> a     proper ontology would then add logical assertions (rules,
>> constraints) to     the hierarchy.
>>
>> I have     enjoyed the interplay between the discussion
>> participants re a     definition of ontology - it just serves to
>> illustrate the futility of     striving for unified ontological
>> representations of real world conceptual     domains beyond narrow
>> communities of interest - opinions are like...     noses...
>> everybody has one (including, I see,     me!)
>>
>
>> Tim
>
>> (Timothy J.     Wilmering)
>
>
>> -----Original     Message-----
>> From: semanticweb@yahoogroups.com [
>> mailto:semanticweb@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
>> neil.mcevoy@ondemand-network.com
>> Sent: Friday, January 13,     2006 7:49 AM
>> To: semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [semanticweb] taxonomy vs ontology?
>
>
>
>
>> while the definitions are flying, can someone explain what the 
>> difference
>
>
>> is between a taxonomy and an ontology?
>
>
>
>> Thanks!
>
>
>
>> Neil.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
>> Visit your group "semanticweb " on the       web.
>
>
>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>> semanticweb-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> SPONSORED   LINKS
>>         Purpose         of  Ontology    Semantic         web
>> War         effort  Effort         florist in  Academic
>
>
>
>
>>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>>   Visit your group "semanticweb" on the     web.
>>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email     to:
>> semanticweb-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> С уважением,
> Leonid                          mailto:leo@mgn.ru
>
>
> 
Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 18:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:11 UTC