Comments on: Synonyms Are SubClasses And Higher Taxa Are Just Tags http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/707 "truly pathetic verbiage" Sat, 03 Dec 2011 02:12:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Roger Hyam http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/707/comment-page-1#comment-4937 Roger Hyam Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:31:39 +0000 http://www.hyam.net/blog/?p=707#comment-4937 The definition of these things is fussy as are many things in this area when they are considered across domains but I mean it in the sense "the set of all sequences of objects that satisfy the concept or expression in question" (pinched from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(semantics) ). "intention" may be a better word to use. I am specifically differentiating it from denotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotation). You could also think of it as the difference between asserted and inferred set membership. The definition of these things is fussy as are many things in this area when they are considered across domains but I mean it in the sense “the set of all sequences of objects that satisfy the concept or expression in question” (pinched from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(semantics) ). “intention” may be a better word to use. I am specifically differentiating it from denotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotation). You could also think of it as the difference between asserted and inferred set membership.

]]> By: Simon Mayo http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/707/comment-page-1#comment-4934 Simon Mayo Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:02:32 +0000 http://www.hyam.net/blog/?p=707#comment-4934 When you speak of extension as the concept of a taxon defined by a descriptive statement(s) isn't this a different use of the word from the intension/extension terminology of class/set theory? I thought that extension meant definition by listing members of classes, while intension is definition by a formula (could be text)that assigns/rejects an object to/from a class. Maybe this has all changed since I last looked at the text books. All the best Simon When you speak of extension as the concept of a taxon defined by a descriptive statement(s) isn’t this a different use of the word from the intension/extension terminology of class/set theory? I thought that extension meant definition by listing members of classes, while intension is definition by a formula (could be text)that assigns/rejects an object to/from a class. Maybe this has all changed since I last looked at the text books.
All the best
Simon

]]> By: Roger Hyam http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/707/comment-page-1#comment-2436 Roger Hyam Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:33:47 +0000 http://www.hyam.net/blog/?p=707#comment-2436 A great relevant quote from "Merging Taxonomies under RCC-5 Algebraic Articulations" Thau, Bowers and Ludäscher (2008) <blockquote>Unfortunately, most of the traditional taxonomic constraints we applied to the taxonomies described above resulted in a logically inconsistent alignment.</blockquote> Which I would interpret as saying we need to take a look a those traditional taxonomic constraints. A great relevant quote from “Merging Taxonomies under RCC-5 Algebraic Articulations” Thau, Bowers and Ludäscher (2008)

Unfortunately, most of the traditional taxonomic constraints we applied to the taxonomies described above resulted in a logically inconsistent alignment.

Which I would interpret as saying we need to take a look a those traditional taxonomic constraints.

]]> By: Roger Hyam http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/707/comment-page-1#comment-2434 Roger Hyam Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:10:29 +0000 http://www.hyam.net/blog/?p=707#comment-2434 Thanks Hilmar, I guess Dave is dealing with this subject in a much more rigorous way. Having read a couple of his papers I feel that my blogging is mainly a council of despair. Thinking about the real world data that is sloshing around out there I can't help feeling that there is very little we can conclude from existing taxonomies - literally there is no useful ways to link them together because they are, by their very nature, too vague. Here is a link to Dave page with his publications for those who want more: http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~thau/ Thanks Hilmar, I guess Dave is dealing with this subject in a much more rigorous way. Having read a couple of his papers I feel that my blogging is mainly a council of despair. Thinking about the real world data that is sloshing around out there I can’t help feeling that there is very little we can conclude from existing taxonomies – literally there is no useful ways to link them together because they are, by their very nature, too vague.

Here is a link to Dave page with his publications for those who want more:

http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~thau/

]]> By: Hilmar http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/707/comment-page-1#comment-2424 Hilmar Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:48:28 +0000 http://www.hyam.net/blog/?p=707#comment-2424 Roger: Are you aware of Dave Thau's work? He might have some interesting insight for you. Roger: Are you aware of Dave Thau’s work? He might have some interesting insight for you.

]]>