10 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
    1. By normal standards I wouldn't recommend it, but there's a cryptic undercurrent that escapes my perception.
  2. Mar 2021
    1. It consists of two relations; the first one being exemplified in "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy) while the second relation is "An X is a kind/type of Y". The second relation is said to be more discriminating and can be classified more specifically under the concept of taxonomy.

      So I think what this saying, rather indirectly (from the other direction), if I'm understanding correctly, is that the relationships that can be inferred from looking at a taxonomy are ambiguous, because a taxonomy includes 2 kinds of relationships, but encodes them in the same way (conflates them together as if they were both hyponyms--er, well, this is saying that the are both kinds of hyponyms):

      • "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy)
      • "An X is a kind/type of Y".

      Actually, I may have read it wrong / misunderstood it... While it's not ruling out that simple hyponymy may sometimes be used in a taxonomy, it is be saying that the "second relation" is "more specifically under the concept of taxonomy" ... which is not really clear, but seems to mean that it is more appropriate / better for use as a criterion in a taxonomy.


      Okay, so define "simple hyponymy" and name the other kind of hyponymy that is referenced here.

    2. This shows that compatibility may be relevant.