Re: The stupidest design I ever saw

Neo wrote:
> > Cartoon is a mammal ...
>
> Your joking, right? Cartoon is not a mammal.

I'm serious. It's just an example. Look into the table on figure 1 which is the basis for the lattice on figure 2. If you don't want cartoon to be classified as mammal, which squares should be unchecked?

> And that is the crux of the problem; in that it can lead to situations
> where a thing classified by the subclass, isn't necessarily classified
> by the respective class. For example, a robotic dog manufactured by
> Sony, is a dog, is a toy and is a machine, but it isn't necessarily a
> mammal (unless it actually has mammary glands which produce milk for
> its young, etc).

Just make the incidence table of objects and their attributes as the article did and derive lattice from it. If you are unhappy with the resulting classification, this means you have to redo the incidence table all over again. In your example, you don't want robotic dog to be considered as a mammal? Just uncheck the box. Received on Mon Apr 10 2006 - 09:01:51 CEST