Re: Thing and Class

While I'm sure we all appreciate the work done on MKR, could we keep 
MKR-specific posts to a MKR-list, not a Semantic Web list. While Richard 
(Dick) McCullough is free to develop any interpretation of "class" and 
"thing" he wants in MKR, of course, but the Semantic Web community uses 
the ones in the W3C Specs, and I thought they were clear in the specs. 
If MKR disagrees, that's fine (there's a long tradition of disagreeing 
about rather vague high-level concepts like 'class' and 'thing'), but 
that's not a question about the  Semantic Web.

Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>
> 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 Thursday, 28 August 2008 00:02:07 UTC