RE: [ontac-forum] Result of vote: Type

["Cory Casanave" <cbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't think we were doing a language or notation?
Any notation we have should not conflict with XML, thus we should not use
"<".    (01)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:02 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Result of vote: Type    (02)

[JS]
I would strongly suggest the shortest possible notations
for such operators.  For subtype, I recommend "<":    (03)

 Beagle < Dog < Mammal < Vertebrate < Animal    (04)

John,    (05)

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:    (06)

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    (07)


Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev    (08)

----- 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    (09)


> 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 &lt;
> for "proper subtype", and &le; for "subtype or equal".
> The supertype and proper supertype symbols would be
> &ge; and &gt;.
>
> 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
>     (010)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (011)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (012)