It would save hours of typing in this forum! (01)
On 30/11/2012 2:32 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Ed,
>> My approach to disambiguating word senses is to add qualifying terms to
>> disambiguate the meanings. So for example, "data" has a handful of
>> different definitions, one of which is:
>> d.1.d pl. The quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations
>> are performed by computers and other automatic equipment, and which may
>> be stored or transmitted in the form of electrical signals, records on
>> magnetic tape or punched cards, etc.
>> So instead of just using this definition I would call it say "computer
>> data". There is a trade off here between clarity and verbosity, but I
>> know which side of that compromise I wish to be. You can use this in
>> other areas to distinguish between say accounting asset and maintenance
>> asset etc.
>> [EJB] I agree that this is a useful way to disambiguate homonyms. But
>> the problems we have encountered are thornier:
>> - The community does not, perhaps refuses to, recognize the concept if
>> you don't use the their term for it
>> - Disagreement among members of the community about the relationship of
>> terms to concepts, e.g. 'class' is a synonym for 'type', or a
>> specialization of 'type', or a reference to extension. If you use
>> 'extensional class', you are unlikely to achieve wider understanding.
>> Part of the community says "oxymoron", and another part asks if you are
>> talking about types whose instances are aggregates.
> MW: There are really two basic problems:
> 1. The same term with different meanings.
> 2. The same meaning with different terms.
> You seem to be pointing to a combination of those. The answer here must be
> first to separate the two.
> In EPISTLE we overcame the second problem by simple concatenation. So for
> example, for what I would now probably want to call Physical Quantity, we
> had three names (property, characteristic, value) with vociferous camps. We
> completely failed to reach agreement on a single term, so we concatenated
> them to property/characteristic/value, and it ran like that for a couple of
> years until we agreed the long name was not that useful and settled on
> property. The concatenation meant everyone could see their own name, until
> they were comfortable to give it up.
> I agree it is entirely about how you deal with the human side of reaching a
> common understanding, and that that is what is really going on. The secret
> is to have approaches that do not start by making people feel their position
> is necessarily either right or wrong with winners and losers.
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Artifact Software Inc
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 (03)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (04)