Re: cdt glossary 0.1.0

mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:

>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>>People tend to assume that words mean what they are
>>>accustomed to, and take for granted that the other
>>>posters have about the same connotations.
>>>They don't always.

>> What you might have to do is characterize some context, and then list
>> the jargon. Another context, other jargon. And then establish some
>> degree of correspondence, perhaps characterized as strong, weak and
>> exact. You have things like General, Math, Software.

>I like the idea. I don't like the '/you/ might have to ...' part,
>though. I prefer to copy & paste.

What I should have done, in that case, is come up with the categories, rather than just leave it to others. That's what I should have done.

>> By logically coherent, they mean - ordered. By order comes both
>> insertion and retrieval. And organized collection, if one prefers.

>So?

Because:

>> It need not be anything from the "real-world". A database of some
>> fantasy skid, or the meanderings of Alice in the woods, would still be
>> an organized collection, just of otherwise meaningless phrases.

>Agreed.

There is some confusion over data being intrinsically ordered. But in various threads, I thought the claim and the subsequent defense that it was not was completely off the beam. I thought it might be clarified, above, that even seemingly meaningless data is meaningful if its proper order is accounted. It's been the subject of so many contentious threads, here. That was the reason for this suggestion. Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 05:31:24 CET