Skip to main content

How is a Definition Different from an Explanation? (Part 1)

This topic will require more than one post, because there is more than one definition of "Explanation".  That is, the term "Explanation" signifies more that one concept.

The first kind of explanation we will deal with can be defined as:

"Bringing a mind to an understanding of a topic".

This means that an explanation must be relative to the mind which is to be brought to the intended understanding.  For instance, the way we explain the solar system to an 8-year old child will likely be different to the way we explain the solar system to a college undergraduate.  The explanation offered will depend on prior knowledge, experience, developed intelligence, and probably many other factors.  Differences between defintion and explanation can be summarized as follows:
  • A definition is not intended to be proportional to any mind.  It has to be the best description of a concept that is available. This is is quite unlike explanation, where there will be many explanations proportionate to the types of minds which are to be provided with a given explanation.  
  • There can be many explanations for a concept, but there should be only one definition.  
  • An explanation may exclude difficult points (say to convey an initial understanding), but a definition must be as complete as possible.  
  • An explanation may avoid technical language.  A definition should aim to exclude technical language, but it may sometimes need to include technical language.
There is always a danger that an analyst creating a definition will treat it as an explanation.  This will likely make the definition unusable as an authoritative reference.  The analyst will probably only be guessing at the type of mind any explanation is aimed at.  It is one reason careful governance of definitions is needed (so analysts do not go in the wrong direction).  

It can be argued that there is an environment in which the definition is to be used, and that the definition should be the best for that environment - but might be vary across such environments.  For instance, the insurance concept of "Incurred But Not Reported" can be defined within the environment of Insurance Company X, without any intent to be used in any other insurance company.

An issue here is that if a definiton is the best for a particular environment, how can this satisfy the vision of the Semantic Web which would seem to have common definitions of concepts across the entire web?  However, this is an issue beyond comparing definition to explanation.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Create Your Own Social Networking Site

Create Your Own Social Networking Site JCOW: Ethical Hacking Top 10 reasons to choose Jcow:- 1. Handle more traffic - Clean codes and Dynamic caching can lower the CPU load and  speed up your website. 2 Make your site more interactive - Well designed Jcow applications help you members to connect and communicate with others more effectively. 3 Add questions to the Registration Form - You can add new member fields, which will be displayed to the registration form, profile form, and the member browsing form. 4 Easily share stuff - Within the AJAX sharing Box, your members can publish status,  photos, videos, and blogs. 5 Customize and Extend your Jcow Network - A Jcow network consists of core apps(like "Friends" and "Messages") and optional apps(like "Blogs" and ""Videos"). You can enable/disable optional apps. You can also develop your own apps. 6 Every profile could be Unique - Members can customize their own profile theme and  add music play...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Abstraction in Definitions of Data Objects

I think there is a major problem in not being able to understand and work with different levels of abstraction.  By "abstraction" in this sense I mean one concept system that somehow describes or defines (not merely relates to) another concept system.  I think this is a big problem for definitions in data models. Let us take an example in a retail business such as mortgage banking: Customer Name.  Customer Name exists in the business.  They use it all the time.  Maybe it is sometimes called Borrower Name, but the concept is the same.  This is the Level 1 abstraction. Now let us think of data values in a column in a table that holds Customer Name.  These data values are stored as a code of 1's and 0's.  Of course these bits are rendered into something we can read.  However, this is not the same as the Customer Name in the business.  I worked for a place where they prefixed the name of anyone who had recently left with "ZZZ"....
Post a Comment
Read more

The Humpty-Dumpty Principle in Definitions

In dealing with empty concepts, we came across the issue that if somebody uses a term that potentially has an unintelligible definition, they are likely to defend themselves by quickly making up some kind of definition.   I strongly suspect that in such cases, the usage of the term will be inconsistent with the definition.  Which brings us to Humpty-Dumpty. Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) is best known for his children's' books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass .  It is in the latter that Humpty Dumpty - an argumentative egg perched on a wall has the following exchange with Alice: 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "...
Post a Comment
Read more