[seek-kr-sms] OWL - taxonomy

[Serguei Krivov]

Hi Nico,

 

So if these are valid intensional definitions of Cyclanthura and C. 

pilosa, do they in any way compromise the ostensive statement (which the 

real-life classification makes at the same time) that Cyclanthura 

(currently) contains 15 species named so-and-so (pilosa, carinata, 

uncinata, etc.)?

 

No, the two definitions   are consistent with each other and that is the
crux. The definition of Cyclantura as merely intersection of 3 morphs is not
consistent with ostensive definition, because it drops Cyclanture-pilosa.
The part ( All hasMorphAncestor.Intersection(Morph12  Morph25   Morph27))
was added specifically to catch up with the ostensive definition.

 

 

Also, would it make sense for us to further reduce the size of the 

Cyclanthura example, but nevertheless stay close to reality, so that we 

can see whether we can accommodate the most relevant issues? I could 

prepare another real-life example that doesn't have more than 5-8 

taxa...(not 22). 

 

I believe that anything that could delineate the real KR problems that
taxonomists face in their real life  would serve well for extending this
dialog between kr-sms and taxon. 5 or 8 is better for us than 22, but we
could work with 22 either.

 

I am going to India on Wednesday and may have less access to email till Dec
29. But, I   will try to continue to participate in this conversation as
much as I can; I hope we could create something real in the end.

 

Cheers,

serguei

 

Cheers,

 

Nico

 

Serguei Krivov wrote:

 

> Here is much more neat owlification for Nico's description of genus 

> Cyclantura

>

> Property hasMorphAncestor connect the species to what it was sometime 

> ago. It is inverse of what I earlier called geneticMutation (perhaps 

> hasGeneticVariation would be better???)

>

> The first line is a clean intensive definition of genus Cyclantura as 

> all set of all individuals that have necessary set of morphological 

> features (Morph12, Morph25 and Morph27) plus those species whose all 

> morphological(genetic?) ancestors had all those features. This 

> includes all those known now and those that will be known in the future.

>

> Second definition suggest that all ancestors of Cyclantura-pilosa 

> (perhaps ther is just one) had that set of morphological features 

> (Morph12, Morph25 and Morph27). Thus on account of this 

> Cyclantura-pilosa is subclass of Cyclantura (here we treat species as 

> classes). If in future someone proves that a species X has (direct) 

> morphological ancestor with features described by Morph12, Morph25 and 

> Morph27 that X would come under genus Cyclantura. In such 

> formalization we do not even need those shadowy species , although 

> they could still be here and the last line stating that property 

> hasMorphAncestor is inverse of hasGeneticVariation (which was 

> geneticMutation in my previous message)connects this formalization 

> with one I described earlier.

>

> .just wanted to put another idea on the table.

>

> serguei

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>_______________________________________________

>Seek-kr-sms mailing list

>Seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org

>http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms

>  

>

 

_______________________________________________

Seek-kr-sms mailing list

Seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org

http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-kr-sms/attachments/20051104/d7a00a01/attachment.htm