Skip to main content

The TEv2 Mental Model for Terminologies

This mental model describes the relations between a community, its (intangible) knowledge, and the artifacts we use to document that knowledge, such as terms, definitions, mental models, glossaries, etc.

It aims to serve the following purposes:

Introduction​

This pattern has two basic parts:

  1. the management-related part. This part consists of a community that owns its particular set of objectives which exist for establishing cooperation between its members, and for which it needs to establish and maintain, a terminology. Managing, or curating a terminology consists of realizing the objectives that the terminology is intended to serve, i.e. to establish a set of concepts, definitions, terms and mental models, the quality of which is meant to be such that
  • members of the community use them in the same, single meaning, thereby preventing difficulties in their cooperation, caused by differences in the individual understandings of words or phrases, and
  • non non-members of the community can obtain a precise understanding of the communications within that community. Also, this management may cause reference documents to be created and maintained, e.g. a glossary that lists the terminology of the community, a dictionary that includes its terminology as well as terminologies from other, related communities.
  1. the terminology-related part. This is where concepts, definitions, terms, glossaries etc. live. This part is what one needs to create tools/support for managing and maintaining a terminology. Here, we have concepts with their definitions and terms as a means to refer to either. A concept, its definition live in the same scope, and within that scope there must be a term to refer to that concept and its definition. Within a specific scope, every term is associated with precisely one such concept and definition. However, within a scope, a concept/definition pair may be referred to by multiple terms, which are then synonyms or aliases of each other.

Formalized model​

Here is a visual representation of this pattern, using the following notations and conventions:

Conceptual model of the 'pattern-terminology' pattern

The figure shows three areas:

White: Parties, Communities​

Members of a community that want or need to collaborate with each other may feel the need for a terminology that helps to effectively prevent any misunderstandings within the community that may hamper collaboration. Communities typically express this need as a wish for creating a glossary.

Our model expresses this idea by saying that a community can commit to use a terminology, that can be represented/rendered as a (human readable) glossary (HRG) (which can not only be generated in different formats (e.g. as a PDF, HTML website, etc.), but also have customized data in its entries). When a community is committed to use a terminology, this means that whenever any of its members uses a term from that terminology in some communication, then the meaning of that term is documented (by means of artifacts in the green area.

A terms-community is a community (whose members are called curators) that aims to serve/support specific communities (including perhaps itself) by enabling them to:

We refer the reader to

Note that for a terms-community to serve itself, it may want to commit to a terminology such as the one we are developing here.

Green: Scopes - Data Artifacts for Referencing and Documenting Knowledge​

Every terminology is scoped, i.e. part of a scope. This scope consists of various other things, including definitions, (typed) scoped terms, curated texts, MRG entries, various kinds of tags, and more (see the figure above). These components of the scope exist for as long as the scope exists.

The central concept in this part is the curated text, as it documents a specific semantic unit, provides its definition (when appropriate), and specifies the scoped term that represents such semantic unit as well as its synonyms. It also contains various other data, e.g. the term type (which is also the type of the semantic unit), the list of grouptags that identify the groups of semantic units to which (the semantic unit that) it (documents,) belongs, etc. Basically, any changes to documentation or attributes related to a particular semantic unit are done in its curated text.

Another important concept is the MRG entry, i.e. a (machine readable) representation of the meta data of a semantic unit that it refers to. Note that this semantic unit need not reside in the knowledge of the community that owns the scope (in which case it would mainly consists of the header data of the curated text that documents the semantic unit), but can also reside in another knowledge (in which case it would be a copy of an MRG entry in an MRG of a scope that documents that semantic unit).

The MRG for a specific terminology of the scope is a structure that consists of some meta-data followed by a set of such MRG entries (with some meta data added). Within a scope, multiple terminologies (and hence also multiple MRGs) can exist, e.g., which are distinguished between by their version tags.

A community will typically a HRG - the human readable equivalent of an MRG. However, HRGs may be created from the different MRGs that exist. Also, different renderings of an MRG may lead to the creation of different HRGs. The kinds of HRGs to be generated depend on the specific needs of the community that will be using it.

Note that a HRG is derived from a single MRG. We foresee that in the future, dictionaries, which document terms from multiple terminologies, can also be generated, but that would not be part of a specific scope, but rather an activity that a terms community could do itself.

Apart from the multiplicity constrained that are showed in the figure, some additional rules apply:

When we say that a terms-community curates a scope, this means that the terms-community

Yellow: Intangible Concepts​

The intangible semantic units (e.g., concepts, relations, patterns etc.) are important because this is where the misunderstandings live. The knowledge of a party uses a subjective conceptualization of the world (that the party has perceived to be living in for as long as it exists) for its individual reasoning, arguing, communicating, decision making etc. Because of this, two parties that collaborate (i.e.: form a community) cannot be expected to have the same conceptualizations. However, it is a common belief that if one uses a term to refer to a concept in its knowledge, the other will then relate it to 'the same' concept within its own knowledge, that we should not assume actually exists. For example, when one of them uses the term 'identity', it knows which concept that relates to within its own knowledge. However, others need to hallucinate as to what that concept might be, and typically respond by thinking that the concept that the term refers to in their own knowledge would be its intended meaning. In many cases that doesn't pose a problem, because the concepts of both knowledges are 'sufficiently the same'. In other cases, the differences in meaning may be such that it disrupts the collaboration between the parties. And that is when it helps to have 'good definitions', because they have the property that collaborators can assess whether or not the concepts in their knowledge (that a well-defined term refers to) are 'sufficiently the same'.

In order to keep the work of devising definitions to a minimum, it helps to know the objectives that the members of the community collaboratively seek to realize. Any definition should define a concept that is relevant for that collaboration. Other definitions are just useless work.