Vocabulary Notes 1
A programmer submitted some vocabulary, asking for critique. This note shares corrections in vocabulary/concept creation, highlighting vocabulary creation ideas by example.
War versus battle
define battle-n1
label battles
label battle
child-of war-n1
… this needs a plabel for the plural.
This is incorrect; a battle is associated with a war, but it is not a taxonomic child of war. The acid test is: ask yourself the question, “is a battle a war?” The answer is “no”, ergo, battle is not a child of war. So, what is the parent of a battle? It’s an activity. It is associated with war. It is orthogonal to preparation, retreat, victory... Maybe it is orthogonal to other “war activities?” Yes.
Here's your next concept:
define war-n1
label wars
label war
child-of hostility-n1
orthogonal hostility-n1
Is war a hostility? I’d agree to that. What other kinds of hostilities are there? Embargo, sanctions, etc… They may be considered orthogonal to each other.
But, is peace also orthogonal to war? Yes. Is it an hostility? No. It’s definitely not a child of hostility. What is it, then?
As an example of a relationship that is valid, consider “banana” and “fruit”. Is a banana a fruit? Yes. Are bananas orthogonal to apples, pears and grapes over the concept of fruit? Yes. In this case, bananas are children of fruit and also orthogonal over fruit. In other cases, like war and peace, the classifications may be more difficult to make.
Countries
define country-n1
label country
label nation
plabel countries
plabel nations
child-of place-n1
This might be good. 'Country' is defined already, though. Do you have the existing definition?
define mexico-n1
label mexico
child-of country-n1
orthogonal country-n1
This looks right, though I think Mexico is already defined as well.
Frogs and toads
define frog-n1
label frog
plabel frogs
child-of amphibian-n1
orthogonal amphibian-n1
This is okay.
define toad-n1
label toad
plabel toads
child-of amphibian-n1
orthogonal amphibian-n1
Also okay.
define amphibian-n1
label amphibian
plabel amphibians
This might work. However, ‘amphibian-n1’ is not the child of anything else. But, amphibian-1 has to be the child of something ultimately leading to ‘things.’ Otherwise, consider that I might ask ‘is a frog an amphibian?’ and get the answer ‘yes’. But, if I ask ‘is a frog a thing?’, the answer would come back as ‘maybe.’ Moreover, there are/may be many inferences related to ‘things’ that should apply to frogs, such as ‘if a thing is near another thing then the latter thing is near the former thing.’ I would want to be able to say ‘the frog is near the toad’ and have ‘the toad is near the frog’ computed by inference. For that both have to be children of the concept ‘things’.
Geographic regions
You attempted to define some features of nature:
define forest-n1
label forest
plabel forests
child-of place-n1
orthogonal tree-n1
Not sure why ‘tree’ seems like a reasonable orthogonality to you. Often, concepts are orthogonal to other concepts with the same parent(s), so if forest were a child of ‘place-n1’, then forest might also be orthogonal over ‘place-n1’. That would make more sense.
define desert-n1
label desert
plabel deserts
child-of place-n1
Looks pretty okay (above). However, there is no orthogonality to other kinds of places; as it is, a person could be ‘in the desert’ and ‘in the ocean’ at the same time. Desert needs to be orthogonal to other concepts in that are related but uniquely different.
define cactus-n1
label cactus
plabel cacti
child-of desert-n1
orthogonal plant-n1
This is wrong. Conceptually, you might think that a cactus is a child of the desert because that’s where you find cacti.
When you ask yourself the question ‘is a cactus a desert’, the answer is obviously ‘no.’ However, in Brainhat-land, the answer will be likely be ‘maybe’. Why 'maybe?' The reason is that sometime during processing, Brainhat could learn from you or through inference that a cactus is a desert. This doesn't seem to make sense, but to illustrate: do you remember the Simpson’s episode where Homer wants to be employee of the year but Mr. Burn’s gives the award to an inanimate carbon rod? So, learning about this story we might ask “is a carbon rod an employee?” Normally, no. But it may become one during processing, even if it seems ridiculous. You might one day be president, too.
Rockets, lanterns and castles
define rocket-n1
label rocket
plabel rockets
child-of things-n1
This is valid, but it puts rockets too close to the top of the taxonomy—you know, ‘animal, vegetable, mineral or rocket?’
define castle-n1
label castle
plabel castles
child-of place-n1
This one is syntactically correct, but if a country were to be a place (as in a definition farther above), then a castle is kind of on the same abstraction level as Mexico. As long as castles and Mexico aren’t orthogonal, this will function. But, a castle should probable be orthogonal to other kinds of buildings—schools, restaurants, houses(?).
define lantern-n1
label lantern
plabel lanterns
child-of things-n1
As with the definition of rockets above, this is awfully close to the top of the taxonomy. It would work, but it would be resistant to distinctions between rockets and lanterns and animals.
More about places
define harbor-n1
label harbor
child-of place-n1
orthogonal ocean-n1
Ask the question: “Is a harbor an ocean?” Nah.
define highway-n1
label highway
orthogonal road-n1
A highway needs to be the child of some thing(s) that lead ultimately up to ‘things’.
define valley-n1
label valley
plabel valleys
child-of terrain-n1
orthogonal mountain-n1
‘Terrain’ seems like a good choice for a parent. It would probably be a reasonable choice for orthogonality, too. In this definition, we have ‘valley’ being orthogonal to ‘mountain.’ But, a valley is never going to be the child of a ‘mountain.’ In processing, springs might shoot out.
define house-n1
label house
plabel houses
child-of place-n1
‘place’ might be better substituted by ‘building’, or something.
define island-n1
label island
plabel islands
child-of terrain-n1
orthogonal mountain-n1
Like ‘valley’, above, ‘island’ could be considered a terrain. So, it would be better if it were orthogonal to something like ‘terrain.’
define town-n1
label town
plabel towns
child-of place-n1
orthogonal city-n1
“Is a town a city?” I think the answer is “no.” So, this looks correct. However… see next definition comments.
define city-n1
label city
plabel cities
child-of place-n1
orthogonal town-n1
You can use any concept you like as the anchor for orthogonality. Making ‘city-n1’ orthogonal to ‘town-n1’, and vice versa, might work technically. But then you would have two anchors for orthogonality—‘city-n1’ and ‘town-n1’. If, then, you subsequently wanted to define hamlet or village, you would need to make these orthogonal to both ‘city-n1’ and ‘town-n1’. This would be ugly and inefficient. It is preferred to have a common orthogonal concept for all of them.
Note 1: you do not want to use the concept that you are defining as the anchor for orthogonality. Say, for instance, that you define ‘city-n1’ and make it orthogonal to ‘city-n1’. You will have made a concept orthogonal to itself. This is actually done in processing to eliminate concepts. In this case, you wouldn’t be able to use the concept ‘city-n1’.
Note 2: You can define a concept as an anchor for orthogonality that needn’t have any parents; it might exists simply for the purpose of distinguishing concepts from each other. For example, this is legitimate:
define city-n1
label city
plabel cities
child-of municipality-n1
orthogonal geographic-location
define geographic-location