Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
Thomas Hood wrote:
>
> (Sorry, the last message was a repeat.)
>
> Since we're discussing ontology, it seems to me
> appropriate to give the term 'category' its meaning in
> that branch of philosophy.
>
> Since we're classifying packages, it seems appropriate
> to classify them into "classes" in the set-theoretical
> sense if not the computer-scientific sense of the word.
> But perhaps "Classification:" would be less ambiguous.
It doesn't really matter that much. We use category
and class interchangeably in AI, and we all seem to
get along :) For instance I referred to "automatic
text categorization", but you can call it "automatic
text classification". Even the difference in supervised/
unsupervised learning is blurry. I think you'd be
horrified to see the other terms in use (like "conceptual
clustering")
"Class:" would be better than "Classification:" though.
>
> Does our resident professional philosopher have any
> comment on the question of classification modes?
>
> Thomas H.
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: