Re: SUO: Set/Class Distinction
Chris,
I agree that the word 'set' should be reserved for extensionally
defined collections. I was questioning the word "class" because
I was never sure how it was intended to be interpreted.
The intensional term that I recommend is 'type', which is
the usual term in programming languages for data types (pace
Russell, who appropriated 'type' for a very special case).
The way I use 'type' includes Russell's types as well as sorts
(which some logicians adopted in order to avoid stepping on
Bertie's toes). It also includes Peirce's type/token usage,
which is common in linguistics, philosophy, and other fields.
And Peirce's use predates Russell's by quite a long time.
Bottom line: An ontology that covers every possible field
is bound to run into conflicting terminology. Compromises are
inevitable.
John