RE: SUO: Re: Starter KB V2 Question #8
I would like to suggest that the key objective is the avoidance of
confusion.
If the extensibility is intended, such as to make the recipient of
information think of a range of implications, then well and good. In most
other cases (and double entendres are exceptions) a single meaning is the
objective. I think this latter situation also applies to SUO work.
I suggest whether it is ambiguous or indefinite doesn't matter in this
regard, and that most people don't appreciate the difference unless you
define the distinction you are making to them. Surely we should try to stick
to ordinary language with single definite meanings wherever possible, and
only resort to defining terms where that is not achievable.
As a further point, I suggest defined terms should be so labelled that the
most common interpretation of their names matches the defined meaning. This
further reduces the frequency of misinterpretation and confusion.
Cheers Graham Horn
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: mfu@redwood.rt.cs.boeing.com [mailto:mfu@redwood.rt.cs.boeing.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 5:38 AM
To: cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu; jawbrey@oakland.edu
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: Re: Starter KB V2 Question #8
Chris Menzel says:
Note this is, again, not ambiguity -- for a term to be ambiguous is for
it to have more than one meaning. To be indefinite is to have a single
meaning which can be extended in more than one way.
---
This is a subtle, technical distinction. If I look at a term and its axioms
and
I can think of two ways to extend it and I'm not sure which one the
axiom-writer
meant, or indeed whether he meant what he said (i.e. it entials both cnpts)
then
from an informal point of view -- me looking at and trying to understand
this term,
I think of it as being ambiguous. I am not sure what the author meant.
I'm not suggesting your comments are incorrect, -- only that there is a
common sense
way of thinking about this which makes them seem incorrect.
Perhaps it's because the word 'ambiguous' is self-describing?
Mike