John,
1. I did say: “In formal terminology, ...”. Let me refer you to definition (3) of ‘connotation’ in my copy of Merriam-Webster: “an essential property or
group of properties of a thing named by a term, in logic.” And ibidem, “denotation” (4) “the totality of things to which a term is applicable, esp. in logic”. I admit that only a computational linguist would write ‘connote’ and ‘denote’ as the back-formations,
but let me assure you, they do so, and regularly.
2. Did you look carefully at the SBVR definition? “verbal
designation of a general concept in a specific subject field”. That looks exactly like the OED definition. But note that it underscores ‘designation’, which means that
designation has the SBVR meaning, selected from possible OED meanings. Now, SBVR clause 8.4.1 defines ‘designation’ as a ‘representation’ relationship between an _expression_ and a concept. That definition chooses between the relationship and a role
in it, which are different OED definitions: “The designation of x by y” is the relationship, but “the designation for X” is a reference to the _expression_ in the ‘signifier’ role (per SBVR, and ISO 1087-1). Semantically, these concepts are importantly different,
because the instances of the relationship are ‘states of affairs’, while the instances of the role are ‘expressions’. I much doubt that the OED intends ‘term’ to refer to a state of affairs. This error (and I strongly believe it is one, precisely because
SBVR makes such distinctions) arises from using a term _expression_ out of its context (and in another), so that the usage acquires a different meaning. To be consistent with the OED intent, using definitions of the
underscored terms, the SBVR definition should be: “verbal signifier for a
general concept in a specific subject field.”
So, I stand by what I said.
It is unsafe to wade casually in these waters. The currents are tricky. And that is exactly how some would-be ontology reuses drown. I come back to my previous
points about reuse: The ontology you want to reuse must be consistent with your theory, and you have to KNOW that it is consistent, not just assume that the interesting terms mean the same thing.
-Ed
P.S. The SBVR “finalization” team formally asked the authors of ISO 1087 which of the OED definitions they meant by ‘designation’, and got two conflicting
answers and one ‘no one ever asked that’. ISO 1087 is about how to develop good vocabularies and how to write good definitions, but unlike ontologies, it acknowledges that a term may have multiple definitions that are distinguished in context. But ‘in context’
means ‘in a usage’, not (necessarily) ‘in a namespace’.
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John McClure
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:15 PM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [ReusableContent] Partitioning the problem
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'.