Identification vs Definition RE: candidate and deprecated concepts

Leonard

> I think it would be difficult to publish a set a concepts "in the
> abstract" without any implicit relationships between them, whether you
> call this a "scheme" or not. The problem is that the usual way of
> defining a concept is to say what broader concept it is a member of, and
> then specify the ways in which it is differentiated from other members
> of that broader concept.
>
> E.g.    "A child is_a person less than 18 years old"
>         "An insect is_an invertebrate with a jointed body and six legs"
>         "Physics is_a science which deals with matter and energy"
>
> Thus in the act of defining concepts you define hierarchical
> relationships to other concepts. You may be able to specify additional
> relationships of all kinds between concepts to make a more complex
> scheme, but that is additonal to the hierarchy inherent in the
> definitions.

I could not agree more, and we are here at the core of the identification vs definition
issue.

Main aspects of this issue are:

1. How do I make distinct in a concept scheme the "defining properties" that one cannot
remove without changing somehow the concept, from other "added properties"?

2. If a concept is *identified* by a URI in a concept scheme, is it correct to say that it
is *defined* by this same URI providing you can get through it some non-ambiguous
information resource about the concept defining properties (subject identifier vs subject
indicator again ...)

3. If a concept identifier is re-used in another scheme, what should be the
requirements/recommendations concerning the commitment of the re-user to the initial
definition of the concept?


Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com