Pathway selection

[colinallen]

At https://inpho.cogs.indiana.edu/idea/812.html one sees the following list of paths to the concept, and it is the first one that is highlighted in the tree. Is there a rationale for this selection?

Animal Cognition Philosophy → Epistemology → Knowledge Sources → Perception Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Perception Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Philosophy of Cognitive Science Philosophy → Philosophy of Science and the Sciences → Philosophies of the Particular Sciences → Philosophy of Cognitive Science Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Folk Psychology

[JaimieMurdock]

These are being generated as everywhere in which the term is asserted as an instance. This points to a flaw with the ASP program. In particular:

Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Perception Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Philosophy of Cognitive Science Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Folk Psychology

Points to an issue with asserting an instance in multiple parts of the taxonomy with the same parent (should they be asserted only in each of the subcategories or in the subsuming category of "Philosophy of Mind"?)

The following pair also shows a problem:

Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Philosophy of Cognitive Science Philosophy → Philosophy of Science and the Sciences → Philosophies of the Particular Sciences → Philosophy of Cognitive Science

In which "Philosophy of Cognitive Science" is listed as a class for two branches of the taxonomy, but may have identical instances. I'm not sure if there is context sensitivity which would distinguish them.

The specific code being used to display these trees is in templates/entity/entity.html:12-31. The code being used to generate the nodes passed in is in controllers/idea.py:282-307. It follows the order of: the node itself (if it is a node), nodes the concept is an instance of, nodes linking to the concept.

This is a symptom of the larger issue of having both nodes/concepts. To complete the migration to SKOS semantics and more accurately represent our system, this needs to be stripped out.

[camerontt2000]

This is just a response to part of this, but I think we should change a bit of the manual taxonomy. Having philosophy of cognitive science be a sub-node of philosophy of psychology under philosophy of mind now seems odd to me.

I think it would be better to delete "philosophy of psychology" here, link to it from philosophy of mind to its canonical place under philosophy of the particular sciences, and replace it with "philosophical psychology" under philosophy of mind. Thoughts?

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jaimie Murdock notifications@github.comwrote:

These are being generated as everywhere in which the term is asserted as an instance. This points to a flaw with the ASP program. In particular:

Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Perception Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Philosophy of Cognitive Science Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Folk Psychology

Points to an issue with asserting an instance in multiple parts of the taxonomy with the same parent (should they be asserted only in each of the subcategories or in the subsuming category of "Philosophy of Mind"?)

The following pair also shows a problem:

Philosophy → Philosophy of Mind → Philosophy of Psychology → Philosophy of Cognitive Science Philosophy → Philosophy of Science and the Sciences → Philosophies of the Particular Sciences → Philosophy of Cognitive Science

In which "Philosophy of Cognitive Science" is listed as a class for two branches of the taxonomy, but may have identical instances. I'm not sure if there is context sensitivity which would distinguish them.

The specific code being used to display these trees is in templates/entity/entity.html:12-31https://github.com/inpho/inphosite/blob/master/inphosite/templates/entity/entity.html#L12. The code being used to generate the nodes passed in is in controllers/idea.py:282-307https://github.com/inpho/inphosite/blob/master/inphosite/controllers/idea.py#L282. It follows the order of: the node itself (if it is a node), nodes the concept is an instance of, nodes linking to the concept.

This is a symptom of the larger issue of having both nodes/concepts. To complete the migration to SKOS semantics and more accurately represent our system, this needs to be stripped out.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/inpho/inphosite/issues/115#issuecomment-13731139.

Cameron Buckner University of Houston Department of Philosophy 713.743.2255

Alexander von Humboldt Postdoctoral Fellow Institut für Philosophie II Ruhr-Universität, Bochum

http://cameronbuckner.net/professional/

[colinallen]

I agree that changing the manual taxonomy as suggested is a good
move. Is this just a change in the code somewhere, or is it a more
involved process to make the change.

On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:27 AM, camerontt2000 wrote:

This is just a response to part of this, but I think we should
change a bit of the manual taxonomy. Having philosophy of cognitive science be a sub-node of philosophy of psychology under philosophy of mind now
seems odd to me.

I think it would be better to delete "philosophy of psychology"
here, link to it from philosophy of mind to its canonical place under
philosophy of the particular sciences, and replace it with "philosophical
psychology" under philosophy of mind. Thoughts?