| Line 7 was replaced by line 7 |
| - __Example 1: [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample1.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 1 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample1.jpg]__ |
| Line 25 was replaced by line 25 |
| - __Example 2: [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample2.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 2 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample2.jpg]__ |
| Line 36 was replaced by line 36 |
| - __Example 3: [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample3.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 3 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample3.jpg]__ |
| Line 44 was replaced by line 44 |
| - __Example 4a: [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4a.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 4 [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4a.jpg]__ |
| Line 56 was replaced by line 56 |
| - __Example 4b: [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4b.jpg]__ |
| + !!__Example 4, cont. [http://seek.ecoinformatics.org/attach?page=NicoConceptExamples%2FExample4b.jpg]__ |
| Line 62 was replaced by line 62 |
| - What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them, which would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable. They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspects to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concepts when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible. Stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions. |
| + What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them, which would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable. They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspects to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. __This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concepts when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible - stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions.__ |
