DOYLC

Stijn made a couple of sharp points in a comment on the post How is a Definition Different from an Explanation? (Part 1) (http://definitionsinsemantics.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-is-definition-different-from.html).  He notes that there is a need for definitions to be short in certain circumstances, as when a user is scanning through a list.  I think this is a good point.  Users may be more in search mode when they are doing something like this.  They want to know if the definition is close to some target they have in mind.  Obviously, a full definition is not fit for such a purpose. So we might have three levels of definition: (a) a one-liner, suitable for lists; (b) a one-paragraph, suitable for a quick read with some detail - and display on a screen with scarce real estate; and (c) the full definition, as an authoritative reference.  I have no problem with the last one being very long and including pictures - certainly more than half a page.    The second point Stijn makes is about the

The issue of the emotive power of terms and definitions is a difficult one.  However, it is never far away, even in data management.  With the recent passing of Kim Jong Il, it seems appropriate to reflect on the political application of terminology.  Below is an excerpt taken from George Orwell's novel "1984" which can be found at the Newspeak Dictionary site www.newspeakdictionary.com.  It deals with how abbreviations can be constructed to achieve certain ends. Admittedly, these are terminological rather than definitional principles, but they are not without interest and certainly have their place.  So far as it could be contrived, everything that had or might have political significance of any kind was fitted into the B vocabulary. The name of every organization, or body of people, or doctrine, or country, or institution, or public building, was invariably cut down into the familiar shape; that is, a single easily pronounced word with the smallest number of syllables t

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".  So we could have "ZZZ_John S

There are far more concepts than there are terms to describe them.  This leads to the use of a single term to signify more than one concept.  Such terms are known as homonyms.  For instance, the term "table" is used in conversations in business about whether or not to discuss a topic.  Someone may say "Let's table that".  Unfortunately, some people think this means "Let's take that topic off the table", while others think it means "Let's put that on the table".  The differences in interpretation are geographic, with the British thinking it means one thing and the Americans another.  It makes for pretty interesting conference calls on transatlantic projects.  I have managed to forget which side thinks of it which way. So homonyms exist, and we have to deal with them.  But what about technicial terms?  Technical terms are specific to very specialized domains.  It might be thought that the narrowness of the domain would itself guarantee

Today, to be called "sophisticated" is considered a compliment.  In fact, it seems to be a virtue to be aspired to.  Here is an example from: http://www.iexaminer.org/editorial/definition-sophistication-obsolete:   "...I resumed thinking. What exactly is sophistication? The things that we deem to epitomize sophistication—going to the symphony, ballet, dressing up, sipping fine champagne and delighting in witty conversation while daintily snacking on tiny foods, etc.—are they even relevant anymore?"   This was not always so.  In the not too distant past, to be called sophisticated was to be insulted.  Here is the definition of "sophistication" taken from Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language(3rd edition, 1766) at http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7124798M/A_dictionary_of_the_English_language :  SOPHISTICATION: Adulteration; not genuineness Sophistication is the act of counterfeiting or adulterating any thing with what is not so good for the s