DOYLC

In my previous post I noted the example of the definition of “Mortgage-Backed Securities” in Prof. Campbell Harvey’s Hypertextual Finance Glossary.   The definition is: Securities backed by a pool of mortgage loans   [http://www.duke.edu/~charvey/Classes/wpg/glossary.htm] The term “pool” is hyperlinked in this definition, and the definition of “pool” is: In capital budgeting, the concept that investment projects are financed out of a pool of bonds, preferred stock, and common stock, and a weighted-average cost of capital must be used to calculate investment returns. In insurance, a group of insurers who share premiums and losses in order to spread risk. In investments, the combination of funds for the benefit of a common project, or a group of investors who use their combined influence to manipulate prices. This definition of “pool” does not fit the use of the term “pool” as it appears in the definition of “ Mortgage-Backed Securities”.   I would argue that “pool” in thi...

A good deal of work in dealing with definitions in information management is done by analysts, and when I have been doing analytical work I have been struck by the need to capture Technical Terms.   Particular business areas always seem to have their own technical jargon, as does all of IT.   However, in capturing the concepts that lie behind these terms there is always a challenge about what terms to use in their definitions. It is an old rule that high quality definitions should not use terms as obscure as the term being defined.   This is negative advice - telling us what not to do.    But what should we do?   I suppose that the best approach would be to use Common Terms.   A Common Term is one used in everyday discourse, and for which there is a well-know definition.    I agree that it is a noble goal to use only Common Terms in a definition of a Technical Term, and we should make every effort to do this. However, can I really define som...

In dealing with empty concepts, we came across the issue that if somebody uses a term that potentially has an unintelligible definition, they are likely to defend themselves by quickly making up some kind of definition.   I strongly suspect that in such cases, the usage of the term will be inconsistent with the definition.  Which brings us to Humpty-Dumpty. Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) is best known for his children's' books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass .  It is in the latter that Humpty Dumpty - an argumentative egg perched on a wall has the following exchange with Alice: 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "...

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...