SUO: Re: More terminology
Pierre,
Pierre,
PG>Are you pissed? I apologize.
No. I'm not pissed. I'm just frustrated with the endless
rehashing of debates about terminology.
JS> 3. I use the terms "concept" and "relation" as purely formal
> terms: they are nodes in a conceptul graph. I agree that
> is not the traditional usage, and I make no pretense that
> it is. But it allows me to use the terms very precisely
> to characterize the mapping from formalism to reality.
PG>It doesn't allow a great deal of communication however.
I agee it is confusing out of context. But I only use that
way of talking when the context is CGs or the representation
of some subject in CGs.
That is my main point: philosophical terms cannot be taken
out of context and used as if they had some universally
agreed meaning. We will need a lot of terminology for the
SUO project, and I recommend that we keep close to (1) the
terminology of the subject under discussion or (2) the CL
notation in which that subject will be represented. Some
metalanguage for relating #1 and #2 will be necessary and
that will have to be agreed and recorded in an SUO glossary.
In any case, such a glossary is a requirement for any standards
document, and it would be useful to start compiling one now.
John