Re: Interoperability and Vagueness
Chris,
CA> With at least some possible concepts it seems
> to me that as one's knowledge increases one may
> wish, for example, to refine the rules in order
> to keep the intended extension unchanged. If one
> does this do we necessarily need to view it as
> a new concept?
If you identify a concept with its definition
(as I believe one should), then you get a new
concept whenever you have a new definition.
Of course, you can have a hierarchy of definitions,
so that many minor variations could be included
under the same supertype.
Whether you call these concepts different word
senses depends on what terminology you choose.
I would simply say that nobody has ever invented
a concept for which they did not provide some
symbol to identify it. As soon as you talk about
those symbols, you use some kinds of words, whose
"senses" are going to shift as your concepts change.
Bottom line: Concepts, word senses, etc., are
different words that people have used for related
notions. The choice of terminology depends entirely
on one's point of view, not on any discernible facts.
John Sowa