[JS]
I would strongly suggest the shortest possible notations
for such operators. For subtype, I recommend "<": (01)
Beagle < Dog < Mammal < Vertebrate < Animal (02)
John, (03)
Using the symbols > and < standing for the inclusion relation and its
inverse, the subclass (or subtype) relation, is a mathematically justified
proposal, unlike the Class/type distinction. For the lattice theory employs
such characters for designating the classificatory relations [strictly
ordering relations].
Following this, I used the relational signs in USECS to indicate the
containment ordering. Below is a sample how it is used for a lattice-like
hierarchy of substances: (04)
Entity > [Substance & Substratum & Essence & Stuff] > [Matter & Material
&Body & Mass & Object] > [Elemental Substance & Particle &Atom &Element
&Molecule] > [Composition & Mixture &Compound &Aggregation] > [the Universe
(the totality of objects)] > the Earth (Globe) > Life (the animate domain,
organisms (plants, microorganisms, animals)) > Humankind > Mind (the realm
of mental objects) > [Society (the domain of social objects and
institutions)] > [Culture (the realm of knowledge, the production of art,
religion, science, and technology)] > Cyberspace >.> the Null Entity (05)
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev (06)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Result of vote: Type (07)
> Pat,
>
> Mathematicians have had a long tradition of using
> one-character symbols and variable names. That
> practice was adopted for APL and Z -- and that is
> one reason why nonmathematicians hate those languages.
>
> In programming languages, COBOL began the practice
> of having very long terms, and the W3C has pushed
> that practice to its ultimate absurdity. I'm
> just grateful that SGML had standardized <p> for
> "paragraph" before the W3C got hold of it.
>
> I believe we need a balance -- very short names
> and symbols for the most common operators, and
> longer, but not absurdly long names for less
> common operators.
>
> > subtype (I prefer the verbal isaSubtypeOf)
> > instance-of (I prefer the verbal isanInstanceOf)
>
> This distinction is so central that the shortest
> possible notation is the best. In conceptual graphs,
> the type label goes on the left side of the box, and
> the instance name or indexical goes on the right:
>
> "cat Yojo" -> [Cat: Yojo]
>
> "the cat" -> [Cat: #]
>
> I would strongly suggest the shortest possible notations
> for such operators. For subtype, I recommend "<":
>
> Beagle < Dog < Mammal < Vertebrate < Animal
>
> For use in web pages, "<" could be entered as <
> for "proper subtype", and ≤ for "subtype or equal".
> The supertype and proper supertype symbols would be
> ≥ and >.
>
> Algol 68 used the notation "x::t" for an instance x that
> conforms to the type t, as in
>
> Yojo::Cat or Snoopy::Beagle
>
> If we adopt these symbols, people who don't like the
> word 'type' don't have to use it (or even think it).
>
> Less common names should be longer, more common ones
> should be shorter.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (09)
|