View source for "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 &quot;???&quot;.

Every definition has a unique ID and is a separate unit of knowledge. If the definition is personal, &quot;!&quot; 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 &quot;!&quot;.

End letter &quot;G&quot; 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:???

__TOC__

<span id="rules-to-keep-collection-and-discussion"></span>
== 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.

<span id="rcf-canonical-form-of-definition"></span>
=== (Rcf) canonical form of definition ===

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

See examples: [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#canonical_form <u>IT-ontology DEFINITIONs</u>]

<span id="rca-collector-action"></span>
=== (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 &quot;&quot;. By finding this part in the source, anyone can verify that the changes only affected the form.

<span id="rdc-definition-must-be-complete"></span>
=== (Rdc) definition ''must be'' complete ===

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

<span id="roaod-one-author-one-definition"></span>
=== (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 ([https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Knowledge_base#JA_group_of_definitions <u>IT-knowledge base DEFINITIONs</u>] [https://ontologforum.com/index.php/Ontology(IT)#JA_group_of_definitions <u>IT-ontology DEFINITIONs</u>]). 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.

<span id="do-topic2the_site"></span>
=== (do-topic)2the_[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/WikiHomePage <u>site</u>] ===

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.

<span id="person-ids"></span>
== Person IDs ==

in ABC order.

<span id="as-alex-shkotin"></span>
=== AS Alex Shkotin ===

[mailto:ashkotin@acm.org <u>Alex Shkotin</u>]

Independent Computer Scientist

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashkotin/ <u>Linkedin</u>] ∘ [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Shkotin <u>RGate</u>] ∘ [https://mipt.academia.edu/AlexShkotin <u>Academia.edu</u>]

[https://ontologforum.com/ <u>Ontolog</u>] BoT

<span id="bl-ben-lutkevich"></span>
=== BL Ben Lutkevich ===

[https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich <u>https://www.techtarget.com/contributor/Ben-Lutkevich</u>]

<span id="ja-john-antill"></span>
=== JA John Antill ===

MS KM, MCKM, CKS IA &amp; KT, KCS

MS AI Student at Purdue

256-541-1229

[mailto:djanteater@gmail.com <u>djanteater@gmail.com</u>]

<span id="kb-ken-baclawski"></span>
=== KB Ken Baclawski ===

[https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski <u>https://ontologforum.com/index.php/KenBaclawski</u>]

[[Category:Definition]]