"DEFINITIONs. rules and tasks"

This document is a collection of rules to keep a collection of definitions.

Abbreviations to use in collection

DiU - definition is unattainable. This means we have a URL to the source description, but not the definition itself there!

DB - database.

KB - knowledge base.

PID - person ID. There are two person roles: presenting his own definition xor presenting a reference to the source of the definition.

bref - bibliographic reference. If not full, keep "???".

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, "!" follows after the ID.

If there is no direct link to the source in the form of a URL, the ID of the person who provided the definition is provided to ask. If the person created the definition himself, the definition's ID is followed by "!".

End letter "G" in definition ID means that the definition is IN GENERAL i.e. not only for IT.

General abbr

ITSM - IT Service Management refers to the entire lifecycle of designing, delivering, managing, and optimizing IT services for users. URL:???

Rules to keep collection and discussion

Every definition is a unique unit of knowledge. In the collection, we keep attributes for reference to real where a definition does exist, reference to the author of it to ask and discuss.

Classification of definitions is a separate artefact with one or more authors involved. Ad should be kept out of the collection using a reference by collection ID of a definition.

(Rcf) canonical form of definition

We need canonical form when definition is embedded in text, but we need it separately.

See examples: IT-ontology DEFINITIONs

(Rca) collector action

The collector acts strictly formally: he transfers the author's definition from the original source in its entirety. If the text is transferred with modifications, the transferred part is enclosed in "". By finding this part in the source, anyone can verify that the changes only affected the form.

(Rdc) definition must be complete

From description to definition: It is usually easy to describe something preliminary, the definition must be complete.

(Roaod) one author one definition

There should be a very clear reason to keep more than one definition from an author in a collection.

Example-1. JA must consolidate all his definitions in one for every collection (IT-knowledge base DEFINITIONs IT-ontology DEFINITIONs). Part of these definitions are descriptions, maybe all of them. And only JA can do this consolidation.

Presumably every of five his current definitions of ontology must be derived from a consolidated one.

For example consider we think that JA004 is the consolidation then we reason:

If JA004 then JA001.

i.e.

If X is a knowledge base whose artifacts constitute explicit axioms about domain entities and relations, expressed in a language with formal declarative semantics.

THEN

X is a formal semantic model enabling logical inference.

(do-topic)2the_site

AS2KB\4.4.2026:Once the document is stabilized, I think we'll need to discuss how to publish its information on the website. A radical idea is to have each definition on a separate page. And some overview pages, too. Furthermore, it's unclear whether we should have a section in the left-hand menu, for example, called Dictionary.

There's a problem with definitions proposed by a specific individual: they shouldn't change them once they're published. It's their opinion at a given moment, which they've decided to publish. But they can, of course, publish a new definition. We need to develop rules for publishing and maintaining definitions on the website.

So we have an article about KB, and a collection of definitions.

For me, the most valuable thing is the collection.