Definition as Content and Container

We often use terms without fully thinking out how we are using them - particularly if abstraction is involved. The other day I was looking at a data modeling tool, and asked a colleague "What did you put into the definition?". It suddenly occurred to me that I was not talking about the content of the definition, but about the definition field into which I could type the content.

After thinking about it some more, I realized that the definition field is a container which we are free to use as we want (at least in the tool I was working with). So an immediate question is, how do we want to structure what goes into this field (e.g. with section headings) and what metadata about the definition do we want to put in (e.g. what person last updated it)?

Of course, the more sophisticated tools have these separate elements of the definition more explicitly segregated. The "definition" is a set of smaller containers inside a bigger container. Perhaps this might mean that a different set of questions arises, such as the order in which we develop content in this set of smaller containers. Or perhaps such questions depend on the actual set of containers that are exposed to use in each of these tools. Either way, I think questions arise.

It is good to be concerned about how to develop good definitional content, quite apart from what this content is stored in. However, the fact that some kind of container exists (whether simple or complex) means that we have to be concerned with the management of the container also. Since both container and content are signified by the term "definition" there is ample scope for confusion here.

I do not think this is being pedantic. Information Knowledge Management is difficult because it is dealing with things that are inherently abstract and immaterial. It means we really have to think our way through it, and it is easy to make mistakes. Keeping in mind that there is a distinction between container and content may help us to avoid a few of these mistakes.

Comments

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...

Hack WiFi Account From Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher

WiFi Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher Tool Wifiphisher is a security tool that mounts fast automated phishing attacks against WiFi networks in order to obtain secret passphrases and other credentials. It is a social engineering attack that unlike other methods it does not include any brute forcing. It is an easy way for obtaining credentials from captive portals and third party login pages or WPA/WPA2 secret passphrases. From the victim's perspective, the attack makes use in three phases: 1. Victim is being deauthenticated from her access point. Wifiphisher continuously jams all of the target access point's wifi devices within range by sending deauth packets to the client from the access point, to the access point from the client, and to the broadcast address as well. 2. Victim joins a rogue access point. Wifiphisher sniffs the area and copies the target access point's settings. It then creates a rogue wireless access point that is modeled on the target. It also sets up ...

The Problem of Pluto: What Is being Defined?

I wanted to return to the issue of Pluto, which has already been the subject of a number of posts. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) created a rich array of issues and problems when it undertook a definitional change that resulted in the demotion of Pluto to the class of "dwarf planets". The topic this time is what exactly did the IAU define? I was watching a PBS special on the status of Pluto a few days ago. It included scenes from a diner where the genial Neil deGrasse Tyson was asking customers what they thought about the new status of Pluto. The reponses varied, but the issue at hand was about whether Pluto was "a planet". The diners all thought that they were dealing with the general concept signfied by the term "planet". Yet there is reason to think they were mistaken. The IAU resolved (see http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/ ) concerning the following: "The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in o...

DOYLC

Search This Blog