On 7/4/07, Olivier Dameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > can a relation "is a" be used to completely replace categories? > > Can you think of any advantage/disadvantage with this approach?
> "is a" represents specialization (e.g. Cat is-a Mammal, which means > that all the instances of Cat are instances of Mammal) > Categories are organized along the "is a" hierarchy, but also follow > the "narrower than / broader than" relation (e.g. Algebra is a > subcategory of mathematics), which is more like a kind of part-of But then why not to use "is a part of" or is "a type of" instead of categories? It seems to me that categories are redundant once you have relations, and what's worst, depending on the context, they seem to be in-lieu of different type of relations. I'm confused! Ciao! Manu -- Emanuele D'Arrigo vfx free electron ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Semediawiki-user mailing list Semediawiki-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user
