- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 02:09:43 -0800
- To: "Vladimir Rykov" <rykov-ont@narod.ru>, <m.spork@qut.edu.au>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <002901c2946a$c6d30e80$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
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 05:09:45 UTC