Ed,
You have connote and denote backwards. To 'connote' is to indicate
things *associated with* (per the Latin con) -- in
this case, applicable to members (parts) of the extension. To
'denote' is to identify a thing specifically -- in this case,
applicable to the concept itself, i.e., the extension taken as a
whole.
Also, to label SBVR's 'term' definition a 'mis-definition' is odd,
because it is an OED definition. I put more faith in OED definitions
than apparently domain-specific definitions such as you describe.
/jmc
On 2/5/2014 9:34 AM, Barkmeyer, Edward
J wrote:
Now, except for the mis-definition in SBVR (in which a 'term' is the relationship between an _expression_ and a concept), I think we can all agree that a 'term' is a linguistic _expression_ in the role of reference to a <something>. In formal terminology, a term is said to *connote* a general concept (an intension, a predicate), which may or may not be what is meant by "class", and to *denote* its members -- the things in a given UoD that satisfy the predicate. And in our speech, both formally and informally, we use both of those relationships. In describing a Tbox, we are actually saying things about BOTH the nature of the intension (the connotation) and the properties of each individual in its extension (the denotation). That is, the term 'term' is not "slippery";
it is u
nderstood to have two simultaneous notions of 'referent'.
|