Names are created for communication: from one observer to another, which can be the same person. (If one doesn't need to communicate a thing, one doesn't need to name it). A name is a reference to a thing (resource) within a category. The names make up the communication information messages. What's in the message?

When we say: "rose", we expect the listener to classify it to the same conceptual category of "beautiful flower", attributing a nice smell and color to it.

All the names one uses belong some conceptual category, which we define either explicitly or implicitly, like "(you know what I mean).name". These categories can be seen as contexts or namespaces. And when one uses a name, the name carries the information of the category one has classified it to. The examples of the categories (contexts) can be e.g.: "UNIX servers", "gcc compilers", "English writers", "Integer numbers", and “C++ code". As everyone has an own reality, one defines categories based on his prejudices and traditions. Most of useful information signal is produced when communication involves both categories and their members. Communication operating with the "pure" members only, without involving one's conceptual categories, often produces mostly noise.

I think that for each conceptual category we do also define a category of the relevant observers, of those who "understand" something about it, i.e. those who would classify the things to this category as (we) defined. Each of our observer categories is not empty: we include there at least ourselves. The examples of the observer categories can be "UNIX users", "Book readers", "UNIX developers", "those who know at least arithmetic", "C++ coders".

Defining names within a category is creating and applying an identification scheme (for the category members) in the chosen realm.

Typical approach is to reuse the already existing identification scheme. This is done by mapping a familiar category to a new one. Such mapping involves one's assumptions on the category structure. E.g. by mapping "Integer numbers" category to "gcc compilers" one implies that e.g. for the members of the latter the order of their creation is important, they can be of a large number, the new members (names) may need to be continuously added. And on contrary, mapping e.g. "English writers" to "UNIX servers" assumes a more or less fixed set of members, not so frequently updated, not having any specific order, etc.

When mapping the categories to each other one also assumes that the corresponding observer categories can be merged together: e.g. "UNIX users, who are familiar with the English literature".

What else would affect our identification methods?

I would suggest that category members could be seen as predicates. And the communication messages are these predicates themselves.

Some categories can contain only "noun" members (or subjects), which are trivial predicates. One assumes them to be always true, and the communication failure happens if one observer does not classify them to the same particular category as the another one. (That doesn't imply a bad thing, on contrary - it helps the information creation). Such "noun" category members are supposed to be stable, and thus require careful definition and commitment. For example, "UNIX servers" or "gcc compilers" are such categories.

The other categories can contain "verbs" or rather non-trivial predicates. The names of the predicates again would need to be stable and commited to. Whereas the "nouns" would be the predicate objects and ... their names would only be temporary and incidental, and thus one would use a very different approach for naming them. An example of such category is "C++ code".

-- TatyanaShpichko? - 02 Mar 2007

---

Edit • Attach • Print version • History: r2 < r1 • Backlinks • Raw View • Raw edit • More topic actions