Is a Definition Just a List of Attributes?

If we look at a data model, is a definition of an entity type automatically produced by listing the attributes of the entity type? If this were true then a data modeler would not need to produce entity definitions - he or she would simply need to identify and list a sufficient number of attributes. I have actually heard data modelers being criticized by terminologists for doing just this. The extent to which such criticism is fair or not is a separate discussion, but the question remains as to whether a list of attributes can suffice as a definition.

I do not think that a list of attributes is sufficient based on the recent discussions about concept systems in this blog. No concept exists in isolation. Every concept exists in some kind of concept system where it has relationships to other concepts. At least some of these relationships and/or related concepts have to enter into a definition so that the concept being defined can be located properly in a concept system, which appears to be necessary for knowledge.

A list of attributes usually will not distinguish between those that are determining for the concept under consideration, and those which are not - some of which may be shared with other concepts. Thus, just reviewing a list of attributes becomes a test of figuring out which ones are pertinent to a definition. This surely defeats the practical aspects of definition.

It would seem therefore that something more than a list of attributes is required to produce a quality definition. While many data modelers do produce quality definitions, it can be seen that the practice of data modeling may present the temptation to just assume that the definition of an entity type is provided by the attributes captured for it. Of course, relationships and other concepts are present in a data model, but it will need another blog to answer the question of whether a data model has enough information to produce a definition based on entity types, attributes, and relationships alone.

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