DOYLC

David Eddy kindly supplied me with the following military tale: A true story heard around the Pentagon goes like this: One reason the services have trouble operating jointly is that they don't speak the same language. "secure a building" has been found to have the following meanings... Navy would turn off the lights and lock the doors. Army would occupy the building so no one could enter.  Marines would assault the building, capture it, and defend it with suppressive fire and close combat.  Air Force, on the other hand, would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy. I think that we can all appreciate the humor in this, but must recognize that there is something deep and important about it.  But what is the moral in this tale? The story shows that "secure a building" means different things to four different groups.  In each case the term refers to a different concept.  And in each case the concept is clearly defined.  The concepts are all very dist...

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...