DOYLC

Analysts can sometimes create huge problems if they try to produce single definitions for terms within a single semantic community and within a single  universe of discourse.  This may sound crazy, so let me start by giving an example. Not long ago I was in a discussion concerning data quality.  The group leaders decided there was a need to discuss the so-called "dimensions of data quality", e.g. Accuracy, Consistency, Timeliness, and so on.  We started with Consistency.  Each individual in the group offered their view of what Data Consistency was.  Several different definitions were offered.  Eventually, the group took a vote and decided which definition of Data Consistency they preferred.  The alternative definitions were not discussed further, nor recorded.  The individuals who had proposed the unaccepted definitions felt slighted, perhaps even hurt.  And they had a right to - as far as I could tell, the alternative definitions repre...

Much definitional work begins with terms.  However, it is surprising that analysts very often take a term on face value and do not try to analyze it further.  In particular, they do not try to determine if the term is an analogy.  There is value in recognizing if a term is an analogy because the analyst can be put on guard against making errors in the definition An analogy seeks to explain a less familiar concept by some degree of resemblance to a more familiar concept.  By "explain" it is meant that there is an attempt to bring a mind to a better understanding of the less familiar concept (explanation being different to definition).  There can be problems with analogies, e.g. a business concept explained by football analogies will be confusing to an individual with no interest in football.  Because of problems inherent in the use of analogies, the analyst must find out if the term requiring definition is an analogy. It may be easy to detect an analogy in a...