DOYLC

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...

For the past couple of blogs I have been exploring different types on concept systems.   I have found these discussed, oddly enough, not in the literature on data modeling, but in the literature on terminology work.   At this point, I want to look at the two major concept systems.   These are very abundant in the raw material of information management, and require special attention. Generic:   This is the familiar supertype-subtype concept system, where a more generic concept encompasses a range of more specific concepts.   E.g. Animal - Chordate - Vertebrate - Mammal - Primate - Homo sapiens .   There are a couple of interesting properties of this concept system: Any instance found in a specific concept is also covered by a more general concept.   The more general concepts possess fewer attributes than the more specific ones, but every specific concept possesses the attributes of each "parent" generic concept.       Intention is inver...

I n my previous blog I discussed the existence of different types of concept systems .  I have found these discussed, oddly enough, not in the literature on data modeling, but in the literature on terminology work.  I have not found discussion of concept systems in philosophy, but that might merely reflect my lack of education, reading in, and general knowledge of philosophy. Before going further into types of concept systems, we need to establish what a concept system is.   Nordterm 8 Guide to Terminology by Heidi Suonuuti (ISBN 952-9794-14-2) states the following: Concepts are not independent phenomena.  They are always related to other concepts in one way or another, and form concept systems which can vary from fairly simple to extremely complicated.  In terminology work, an analysis of the relations among concepts and an arrangement of them into concept systems, is a prerequisite for the successful drafting of definitions. This is not a great definition of ...

An involuntary hiatus has prevented me from the pleasure of blogging on definitions for about a month.  I am now gradually getting back to normal, and am able to blog again. Today I want to look at concept systems, and types of concept system. In data modeling, only one type of concept system commonly appears - the generic concept system, containing Supertypes and Subtypes.  Very occasionally, the part-whole type of concept system can also be found.  The latter be seen in "bill of material" structures.  Strangely, the visual representation of a generic concept system and a part-whole concept system can look very similar in a data model.   I think that this leads data modelers to play down the idea of concept systems, and indeed the term "concept system" is not really met with in data modeling. However, if we turn to the discipline of terminology, the idea of concept system is very prominent, and different types of concept systems are called out.  Let m...

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"....

The traditional answer to this question is "yes", because classic essential definitions follow the formula Definition = Genus + Specific Difference. However, definitions of concepts in natural science tend to be more like descriptions than classical definitions.  This may be unavoidable, but there is always a danger in a descriptive definition of not mentioning any related concepts.  Such definitions may give the impression of a style in which definitions should be written, and this sometimes carries over into analyst work - so that some analysts tend to write descriptive definitions, even if essential ones could be provided.  And such definitions lack mention of related concepts.     But should a definition always identify related concepts?  I think it should.  I think that practical usage of a definition requires an understanding of the Concept System in which the definition is located.  Without such an understandin...

I think that partial definitions exist, and there are practical reasons for being interested in them.  I cannot find any literature about them, and this post is my first attempt at dealing with partial definitions. The only conceptualization of a partial definition that I have figured out in any detail can be summarized by the formula: Partial Definition = Name of Concept System + Type of Relation in Concept System E.g., for "Wristwatch" Definition of "Wristwatch" = "A type of timepiece" Obviously, this parallels the Aristoteialan formula of Definiton = Genus + Specific Difference.  However, I think that Aristotle commits definitions to being only in a Concept System of generic relations (supertype-subtype to our data modeling friends).  Other types of Concept System exist, e.g. partative (part-whole), and associative.  In a partial definition we provide information by locating the concept to be defined within a particular Concept System, giving context to...