DOYLC

In the last post, univocal, equivocal, and analogous terms were discussed.   It occurred to me afterwards that all of these classes of term presuppose terms that signify concepts.   But what about a term that does not signify any concept?    At first this sounds a bit stupid.   Surely we would not waste our time on terms that do not signify a concept.   However, I have listened to several decades of marketing hype in Information Technology and I think that I have heard terms that do not signify anything - but which have some kind of emotive power. I have tried to look for philosophical sources about terms that signify empty concepts, but have not been able to find any - probably due to the short time I have been able to invest in the search.   This makes me cautious, so I will confine the discussion of empty concepts mostly to data management. First, if a term signifies a concept that can supposit for actual materially existing instances, then the co...

This is a topic which we will probably have to return to in the future, but a start has to be made.   Definitions are inextricably bound up with terms, and one classification of terms   divides them up into Univocal , Equivocal , and Analogous .   Let us briefly review these three classes.    Univocal Term: A terms that has only one meaning.   That is, it signifies only one concept, and thus corresponds to only one definition.   Such a term always has the same intension wherever it is used.     E.g. the term "entomology" signifies the study of insects.   Equivocal Term: A term that has more than one meaning.   That is, it signifies more than one concept, and thus corresponds to more than one definition.   An equivocal term has different intensions when it is used.   E.g. the term "chihuahua" can signify (a) a breed of dog; (b) a state of Mexico.   Analogous Term:  A term that is intended to convey one or mo...

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...

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...