mvf:term-in-context
====== Differences ====== This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
mvf:term-in-context [2017/06/19 18:24] ebarkmeyer_thematix.com comment on C |
mvf:term-in-context [2017/06/19 18:35] ebarkmeyer_thematix.com annotated D |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Similarly, if a term is context-dependent, and the context (I.e., name space) is not the same in different domains, then in may be necessary to define different vocabularies that resolve the ambiguity of a term in different contexts. It may be possible to use the same vocabularies if the term is always context-dependent, and the contexts (name spaces) are complementary. | Similarly, if a term is context-dependent, and the context (I.e., name space) is not the same in different domains, then in may be necessary to define different vocabularies that resolve the ambiguity of a term in different contexts. It may be possible to use the same vocabularies if the term is always context-dependent, and the contexts (name spaces) are complementary. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [ejb] This is the general case: the business vocabulary was devised by the business people for business activities, and the models must refer to the business concepts. The vocabulary does not have to be "universal" in any sense; it's just that the vocabulary exists with or without the models that link to it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [ejb] A detailed model may create new narrower concepts, and thus presumably produce a need to extend the business vocabulary. In practice, these refined things become new business acronyms, or terms prefixed with proper names for regulatory requirements, and the like. Whether the original business vocabulary is expanded, or a specialized vocabulary extends it, there is in every case an extended business vocabulary that supports the model concepts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [ejb] It is not clear that every model element necessarily represents a "business concept"; some are truly artificial, or are glossed over in a general business category of things with technical differences uninteresting to business persons. So, linking a model to an existing business vocabulary may not result in linking every element, or in a one-to-one match on the meanings. It is also possible that the business term for a 'new' concept is in fact its "definition" -- e.g., "a bank whose annual gross income is over 50 billion dollars". That concept may not have an accepted business term, and thus would not normally appear in a vocabulary at all. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [ejb] No "namespaces" are involved in business terminology; 'namespace' is an IT concept. There are several different ideas in business glossaries: language, speech community, subject area, and context of use. An MVF 'vocabulary' //is// a "namespace" for MVF purposes. MVF takes the position that a "business vocabulary" is restricted to a language and a speech community (however broad) and may or may not select a single subject area. Subject area is a broad "context of use", and may also appear as a qualifier on a term within a vocabulary for a wider overall audience. But the more common 'context of use' issues are verbs used with different types of subjects, and nouns denoting properties or actions of different subjects or used with different prepositions. E.g., transactions and companies may both have "buyers", and companies might have buyers in both senses, like Whole Foods (but distinguished by a mergers/acquisitions subject area versus a retail operations subject area). So the term "buyer" may refer to different concepts in a retail vocabulary, but the ambiguity is resolved by 'context of use'. | ||
mvf/term-in-context.txt ยท Last modified: 2017/06/19 18:36 by ebarkmeyer_thematix.com
Page Tools
