Skip to main content

Posts

Generic vs. Partitive Concept Systems

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...

On Types of Concept System

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 ...

The Idea of Concept Systems

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...

On Roles, Attributes, and Definitions

Dave Hay commented on my post How Many Attributes Do I Have?   Dave notes that there is a difference between me and the roles that I play.  This is an important point that I struggled with previously.  Dave states "most of the examples are attributes of my role as a customer", meaning the examples I provided in my post. "Role" is a term that gets bandied around a lot in data modeling.  In my previous post on Role vs. Relationship I argued that roles really refer to certain kinds of relationships.  However, Dave's point is one that I have heard on a lot of occasions and has to be taken seriously. Let's state the question this way: is the attribute Customer Lifetime Value to Hardbitten Liquors an attribute of me, or an attribute of my role as a customer of Hardbitten Liquors?  And if the latter, just what do we mean by "role". There is no doubt that I am an instance of a concept.  The concept is human being.  Further, Customer Lifetime Value to Har...

Legislating vs. Discovering Definitions: Radical Differences

Most of my experience in doing definition work has mostly been from the perspective of an analyst involved in systems development.  These days it usually data-centric applications, such as building Master Data Management (MDM) or business intelligence (BI) environments.  The method of the analyst begins with understanding scope and requirements, and then finding the business concepts and data objects that need to be defined. However, there are other perspectives.  Terminologists, often oriented to the language translation industry, do deinition work.  So, I suspect, do brand managers, who want to control messaging to customers. I work a good deal in financial services, and I am aware that there is another group that gets involved in definitions.  These are business people who create completely new products.  For instance, Asset Backed Securities (ABS) and Colladeralized Debt Obligations - both now notorious as weapons of mass financial desctruction - were c...

How Many Attributes Do I Have?

Charact eristics of a concept - its attributes - are central to definitions.  But to what extent should the characteristics of a concept be listed in its definition?  Should it be few, or some, or as many as possible?  As a step in beginning to answer that question, I think that we need to ask if we can reliably determine all the characteristics that a concept possesesses.  And I now intend to see if I can answer that question by finding out if I can list all the attributes that I possess. I am aware that I am an instance and not a concept (at least a general concept).  However, I would submit that there is a prima facie case that I should be able to provide a list of my attributes.   If such a list could be produced, then we couldn see if the attributes apply to the concept I am an instance of (humans).  We could then move on to figuring out what attributes should or should not be included in a definition.  But, if I cannot even r...

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...