Issue 16: Which terminology should we use?

Starting Date: 
2001-07-05
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Done
Closing Date: 
2002-10-22
Background: 

There is a problem of consistency of the vocabulary used in the CRM definitions. Which standards or good practice should we adhered to? Is the intuitive understanding by layman important, should one of the many terminologies from Computer Science or that from W3C be used?

Current Proposal: 

In scope. Working Group 3.

Check ISO 2382, if applicable.

Partial decision:

The CRM will not attempt to be compatible with ISO 2382. It is not consistently used within ISO and it does not represent the language commonly used within the community. Copenhagen 3/7/2002.

Other terminologies are still sought to adhere to.

Outcome: 

Use RDF-like terminology as in version 3.3.2. Use more verbose explanations as provided in revised Introductory for version 3.3.2. Words shown in bold, including "extension", "intention" "strict inheritance" and "multiple inheritance", further "instance",  "shortcuts", perdurants, monotonic, open world, disjoint, primitive, complement and endurants, "query containment", "symmetric", "interoperability" and "semantic interoperability" to be added to the list of defined terminology. Talk about "super-property" and "sub-property", not super-class and sub-class in case of properties. Rename Cardinality Constraints into Property Quantifiers. Add property quantifiers to the Terminology. This will help to avoid misunderstandings. Add those to the list of defined terminology.

Proposal accepted

Rethymnon 22/10/2002