Talk:Glossary

General questions

General question: this glossary becomes really big. Making the table get beyond the page, even if I understand why it was done, I'm afraid looks like there is something technically wrong with the page. Also, it becomes not readable, as the table gets way too wide and too long. What about having a page by language? If there is an ambition or if the possibility is open to have pages in other languages, it would be better to split the glossary into specific language pages. --Corinalupu ^(talk) 08:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Corinalupu:, I see your point. Ideally, a "scrollable" table of a reasonable size, with 1 fixed row and 2 fixed columns could help a lot. I will look for something suitable for that. As for splitting the glossary into separate language pages, not sure. I see user value in having multiple languages in one page, and I'm also afraid that, besides not solving the "length" issue, it would be a maintenance nightmare.-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 08:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Luca I'm afraid a table is always a pain when it's getting that big, even if it were scrolable. Usually, if it's gets that way, it's a sign the format is the wrong one. Also on mobile, it's not readable. What user value do you see? --Corinalupu ^(talk) 09:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

General question - is it appropriate to have references in the glossary? --Gregb^talk 14:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Opinion: yes, it is, but limited to one of the following purposes: 1) help explaining the rationale of a specific translation; 2) Help resolving possible ambiguities on the contextual listing of a certain term. By contrast, definitions and explanations of a term should be in the Definitions page (should we keep it) or in each corresponding "concept" article. Equally, this should hold true for references which provide sources, extensions, or critiques of such definitions and explanations.

Luca happy for that to be the case but think we should have a footnote/comment to that effect --Gregb^talk 10:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No objection to this, Greg. -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 07:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

On a related issue I don't think adding definition is consistent with the wiki practice of only have writing things once - these should be on the definitions page or on topic-specific pages --Gregb^talk 10:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The definitions page was a starter page, ideally it won't end up existing and will be deleted. So no duplicate issues. Short definitions should be inside the glossary - because, well, it's a glossary! Definitions inside the glossary also assist with ensuring translations are accurate. (Thanks Luca). When there is a more extensive definition required, that's when a link would be created so that the term can have a whole page to explore the meaning. GregB, Luca ---  kitt ^(TALK)  23:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

General question - is it useful to have so many words in the glossary that are context-free, as they are used in common language with the same meaning than in anthro-complexity? -Corinalupu ^(talk) 21:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Corina, I don't see many really context-free words here. I would say there are 3 types of entries: 1) Items that are specific of the field of study of Naturalizing sense-making, possibly neologisms; 2) borrowings from other fields and uses which gain a specific semantic value within the field; 3) keywords from methods, stories, metaphors, etc.. The glossary translations could also provide an enabling constraint, to favor language coherence of future localizations (of methods, of the Wiki itself...). Maybe, after some discussion, this talk could become the Glossary page introductory summary?-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 08:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Luca I agree with you about the words that you can place in 1) and 2). But for 3), I'm not seeing it. If I take some entries here: Abstraction, Act, Analyze, Attitude, Categorize, Change, Concept, Conflict, Creed, etc: those are just basic words, gaining nothing in Anthro-complexity. If one criteria for adding them is that they are used in metaphors or stories, where do you stop? Why not adding "Children", "Party", or even "Screwdriver"? -Corinalupu ^(talk) 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Corina I think 3 is also important from a context perspective as the usage can vary - just look at the number of quantified entries on Wikipedia --Gregb^talk 11:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Corina I think I get your point, and probably I haven't clarified 3) well enough. Keywords in 3) are often "bridge" concepts which help relate different parts of the field of study. I see value in highlighting them, as this facilitates a holistic comprehension of the field. Let's take some of your examples. Not only "Abstraction" is a fundamental and typically human ("Anthro-") cognitive process, but it is also key to grasping the concepts of "Granularity" and "Exaptation". "Analyze" is a key part of the proposed approach to "Complicatedness", and, as such, it is closely related to the Cynefin framework. Beyond that, I still see the translation / localization reason as valid.

Luca Gregb If I understand you correctly, even something like "Analyze" is part of the "jargon" building or "core technical glossary" of the field because you can link it to the ordered domain for instance. In that case, making that link in the definitions would be useful. Otherwise, how are we making the point that it's part of the core glossary? --Corinalupu ^(talk) 10:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Corina, in my opinion yes. In the sense that not only it relates to "complicatedness", but also the concept of an "expert", and to methods aimed at addressing conflicts across different analytic approaches. It may also relate to "root-cause analysis", "delphi methods", "network analysis", to "granularity" and "constraint mapping" (unit of analysis) I understand, however, that the in/out decision of a given glossary item is not a simple black/white one. I fully agree on your point on linking. This is already happening when a linked corresponding "concept" article is in place (related concepts, methods, etc.). We can certainly do more. You are forcing me to think: thank you! -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 17:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Structure and formatting

Currently we have all word translations on one page, with starter definitions on another. Here is the suggested glossary conventions for wikipedia. Here are some example glossaries. Having all the languages in one place to be able to see how the words are formed in comparison feels useful. The current short definitions are also useful for comparing terms at a glance. I imagine many of the terms will end up having extended definitions and usage examples, as well as explicit descriptions of what they're not. It's likely to become a bit unwieldy if we try to put short definitions into the current table, along with links to external pages. I'm curious about thoughts on formatting for ease of use and any other factors to be considered. ---  kitt ^(TALK)  08:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed to merge Concepts and Definitions pages into Glossary in their respective discussion pages. I see more advantages than disadvantages in having everything in one place, as long as the definitions are kept short and the terms which deserve a separate page are linked accordingly. Moreover, an on-page short description would help with translation accuracy -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point re on page description helping with translation accuracy. Perhaps let's put a succinct short description version into the Glossary table, and if it gets unwieldy we can reassess. ---  kitt ^(TALK)  00:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Cynefin

Arabic

It would appear the word doesn't have a direct translation from the research I've done. Place of multiple belongings was selected to be مُنْتَمَى had to be derived from a number of linguistic structures to come to the final candidate. Place is signified in the Arabic language with a starting م as in place مكان, which is the beginning of the word. The word belong إنتماء, I opted against انتسب since the latter etymological root is represents a descendance/ancestry. إنتماء on the other hand shared the etymological root with نمو\نما which represents growth. While إنتماء is commonly used to indicate belonging in passages on nationalism, identity...etc. There is an implied plurality here, but I haven't come across a reasonable way to indicate plurality of place in the belonging in a single word. I also feel strongly this should be a single word and not an Arabic Compound Word or term. Ahmad Al-Shagra (talk)

Aporetic

Arabic

I noticed the first attempt at translating Aporetic was الريبة which does the 'suspicion' layer of the word justice, however the usage of Aporia in philosophical contexts don't usually use that translation. The Etymology of Aporio includes 'road with no end', which is one identical with that of معضلة. Additionally, there is an internal phenomenon included in Aporia, which is also shared with معضلة the etymological root of which is shared with muscle and is commonly used معضلة to express an issue with no clear end in sight. Ahmad Al-Shagra (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to say that I really appreciate the work you are putting in here ---Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. And since you're here, how do you feel about translating to the nearest possible meaning of the word even if it comes with certain cultural/religious connotations that could alter its usage? I mean to say, exceptions withstanding, should etymology & meaning carry more weight than popularity? I clearly prefer the former but am noticing the choice arising where the popular usage of a word could alter its meaning and thus our selection. Ahmad Al-Shagra (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking

How can Aporetic link to the Aporia page?

Please sign comments and see how colons work for indentation 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Various ways so [[Aporia|an aporetic approach]] would be one way ---Snowded ^TALK 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Assemblage

To everyone translating this word in their language, I would like to draw attention to the fact that "assemblage" is a philosophical concept created by Gilles Deleuze in French. But the word for it in French is "Agencement" which translated to English would be "Layout" or "Arrangement". So the direct translation from French to English is not "Assemblage", this is the term picked by the official translator. So I would invite people who do translation of this word to make sure they know how Deleuze's concept was translated in their own language. ---Corinalupu (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thx Corinalupu: also see my deductions below for Italian. Btw, the Wikipedia French-to-English link leads to "Assemblage (philosophy)", which, according to your remark, is an incorrect translation ---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 14:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thx LucaOrlassino: yes I saw the related wikipedia page, this is why I said that "Assemblage" was the word picked in English by the official translator, and not the direct translation from French. This is something quite common in translation, not to pick the exact same matching word, but one best conveying the meaning. Let me know if I'm not clear enough. ---Corinalupu (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it Corinalupu -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 20:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Italian

Concatenamento (proposed) - Given Corinalupu's comment above, a quick internet search (here, and here) would lead us to "Concatenamento" (possibly "Concatenazione" as in Raoul Boch, il Boch Dizionario Francese Italiano Italiano Francese, Zanichelli). As an alternative, this interview proposes "di enunciazione" an alternative ("collettivo di enunciazione" for "agencement collectif"). Hope this helps a more qualified translator in solving the dilemma. ---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 14:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Assembly

Because of their close assonance,"Assemblage" and "Assembly" are often mistakenly exchanged. As the former already comes from a codified school of thought, should we consider finding an alternative for the latter?-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 07:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese

Not sure about the proposed translation Coletanea, meaning "Compilation". I think it works semantically well, but would welcome native speaker endorsement. -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 07:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Coherence

By studying this term in contrast with Cohesive, to the best of my understanding, its meaning draws from that of physics, as appose to any other meaning the word might carry. Ahmad Al-Shagra (talk)

For the most linguistically curious ones, both coherent and cohesive share a common etymology in the Latin verb coherĕre (co- meaning together and herĕre, to stick, also think of the English ad-here). They can be synonyms in the sense they both imply parts that 'stick' to each other. In Geology, coherence is used to describe rocks and sediments that are cemented and compact. In Physics, coherence is used to describe two oscillatory phenomena that keep their phase shift constant in time. The figurative sense, that I would suggest applies here, is 'without contradictions' (e.g. a discourse, an idea, a choice, a behavior). By the way, the Italian form coesivo (subsequently also coeso), coesione evolved through the French cohésif, cohésion. -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 09:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Arabic

So in Arabic, the word commonly used by mainstream translators is متماسك which is commonly misused for cohesive. I've opted instead to use the word اتساق or متسق based on the fact the same term is used in describing the phenomenon of Coherence (Physics) in Arabic اتساق ويكيبيديا Ahmad Al-Shagra (talk)

Disposition

The conceptual distinction between "disposition" and "propensity" needs clarification-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Emergence

Italian

Emersione - Not sure: "Emersione" is used for submarines and volcanic islands, but "emergenza" means "emergency"---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What about "insorgenza" ? Corinalupu (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, good question. It is semantically quite accurate. For some reason, probably related to pragmatics, it doesn't sound well to me in this context, but I wouldn't discard it. -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 09:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Portuguese

I'm afraid the proposed "Emergente" translation is incorrect: it means "emergent" (adj.)---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Spanish

Analogous comment as for Portuguese. "Emergente" translation seems to me incorrect: it means "emergent" (adj.), while "Emergence" is the noun-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 10:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Exaptation

Italian

Preadattamento (Exattamento) - Source: Wikipedia. Should we reference this within the page?---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Flexuous

Italian

According to Nicola Zingarelli, Vocabolario della lingua italiana, Zanichelli, one of the meanings of the Italian word flessuoso is "that flexes in a harmonic and seducing manner". An alternative synonym would be sinuoso (≈"sinuous") -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Framework

Italian

The English word is commonly used, and Italian equivalents seem too generic (e.g. "struttura", meaning structure) or too specific ("intelaiatura", decent literal translation, but hardly usable outside its original physical meaning)---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 19:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Governing

Italian

Di governo - "Vincolo di governo" or "vincolo restrittivo" could render "governing constraint"---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese

The proposed Portuguese translation "restrição" for "constraint", in my understanding could be semantically associated to governing ones, but not, for example, for enabling constraints.---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Spanish

Please, see comment fo Portuguese-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 10:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Novel

Italian

Inedito - Full credit to the Portuguese translator here: I wouldn't have thought of it!---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Power

For romance languages, two possible translations: poder (pt), poder (es), pouvoir (fr), potere (it), or potência (pt), potencia (es), puissance (fr), potenza (it). Ideas on which is best?-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Probe

Italian

Indagare, but also "Investigare". I would propose the cognates of the latter for Portuguese and Spanish, too.---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thinking twice, "sondare" could be a better translation ---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 12:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese

Sondar - a tradução do "Probe" também não é direta e entendemos como uma mistura de examinar, explorar, aprofundar. [moved here from main page]

see Italian---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Spanish

see Italian---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Respond

Italian

Rispondere (Reagire) - "Rispondere" literally means "to answer". "Reagire" means "to react". I understand that "respond" is used here in the sense of "to act consequently" (to prior categorization, analysis, probing-sensing, etc.), which would translate into "agire di conseguenza", but would lose compactness.---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Safe-to-fail

French

The first problem I see is that French simply doesn't allow for the succinct combination of terms that English does. If the specific word doesn't exist, you generally have to paraphrase or stay away from direct translations. The second problem is how to translate the word "safe" in this context :

• sans danger -> a potential alternative "sonde dont l'échec est sans danger" / "sonde à échec sans danger" / "sonde sans danger"
• sûr, assuré -> "une sonde donc l'échec sûr" is likely to be misconstrued as "a probe that will surely fail"
• sauf -> this term is becoming rare outside of the expression "sain et sauf" (= "safe and sound")
• prudent -> I don't think this is the connotation we're looking for
• sans risque -> I think the idea is to take some risk but not one that cannot be recovered from
• en (toute) sécurité, sécurisé -> I think this will be taken as a synonym of "sans risque"
• sain, salubre, potable, intact -> not at all the right context
• indemne -> the meaning goes in the right direction but seems intractable

I'm currently leaning towards "surmontable" (= surmountable) which is not a direct translation but I think conveys the meaning. Another proposal which is interesting was "sonde qui peut se permettre d'échouer" (= "probe that can afford to fail"). It's a bit longer than what I would have liked but I think conveys the meaning quite well.

William Bartlett (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment on the other possible translations of "safe".

I like “surmontable”, because you get away from the need to qualify what you are getting over exactly. Because, if you say “sans danger” ou “sans risque”, then you’re saying there won’t be any. Whereas what we’re trying to say is that there will be some risk, but not one that you won’t be able to recover from.

Now “probe” for me implies an exploration, whereas “sonde” even if it’s a correct translation is only the physical object that you’re using in different fields (surgery, geology, etc). So other options could be “sondage” to also get the figurative aspect or "exploration"? But with "sondage", there is the risk of confusing it with inquiries. So it might not be a good option.

Maybe something shorter could be "sonde dont l’échec est surmontable". Corinalupu (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

What about "exploration abordable" or "exploration raisonnable"? William Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Abordable" is not conveying the same meaning as "surmontable", because for the first word the emphasis is on how you're going into the probe , whereas the second is about how to recover from the consequences once you did the probe. It's the same for "Raisonnable". You talk about the state of the probe in itself. How is it going to be to do the probe and not the consequences. What bothers you with "surmontable"? Corinalupu (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The only bother is the number of syllables. William Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I see, something as catchy as "safe-to-fail" would be useful for spreading the expression. Let's keep thinking about it a bit then. Corinalupu (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Analogous problem with Italian... What about working on the concepts of "immun" or "recouvrable / récupérable", instead? -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 07:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for the nuances in Italian, but in French, "recouvrable" is used for debts. And "récupérable" has a poor connotation. If you say something is "récupérable", it means it's really bad and you'll get something back, but it's going to be in poor shape. Corinalupu (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't answer for "immun" because it's used in situations related to being infected. Being "immun" against something means to have the antidote in yourself, and it's very rarely figurative. It can be used, but it's usually pejorative. It is sometimes used to say sentences like: "I'm immune against his stupidity.". So not very positive. Corinalupu (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Scale

"Scale" in English is both a verb and a noun. While the current German translation corresponds to "scale" as a verb, which is probably appropriate given the context, the other translations correspond to "scale" as a noun, and should be corrected. -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 06:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sense

Arabic

For the Arabic translation, considering it is high in impact and will affect other concepts as well, avoiding mistranslation early on is imperative. The Etymology of the word includes "to perceive by the senses," 1590s, from sense (n.). Meaning "perceive (a fact or situation) not by direct perception" is from 1872" Etymology Online, accordingly while استشعر would seem to be the most appropriate verb in Arabic, however considering the verb is used within the context of perceiving the data that would allow them to determine which domain they are in more than feeling it would appear more appropriate to use the verb استدرك as it has shared etymological roots with the latin Sensus, being utilized to move, progress, catch up as well. Ahmad Al-Shagra (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Italian

Sentire (Osservare) - While "Sentire" is etymologically closer to "sense", it literally means "to listen". Perhaps "Osservare" is more appropriate. Also see analogous remark in Portuguese translation notes on Wiki page---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese

Sentir - a tradução do "Sense" não é direta e aqui entendemos o Sentir sendo a somatória ou mistura de "diagnosticar", "avaliar" e "perceber". [moved here from main page]

Sense-making

Italian

Dare un senso - Not completely satisfied about this translation, as my proposed one implies an object which receives sense, e.g.: "dare un senso a qualcosa, alla vita..." for "make sens of sth, life..."---Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 13:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese

Sense-making - "Fazendo sentido" é o ato de entender, dar sentido e compreender a situação ou questão para que possamos agir. [moved here from main page]

Content originally in "Definitions" page

The content below has been pasted from the Definitions page (+ discussion page), before dismissing the latter, and after merging individual definitions into the "Short description" column of the Glossary table. Just in case someone wish to check the accuracy.-----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 06:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

From main page

• Assemblage is a concept developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Assemblage theory frames social complexity in the emphasis of fluidity, exchangeability, and the multiple functions through entities that create their connectivity. Assemblage theory asserts that, within a body, the relationships of component parts are not stable and fixed; rather, they can be displaced and replaced within and among other bodies, thus approaching systems through relations of exteriority. When used in terms of Narratives, they are often made of stories that have no single definable author but exist independently as a collective; for example, "The Hero's Journey" exists in multiple cultures but take many different paths or the stories of vampires.

• A creed is a simple way of defining and remembering things that all know, or merely likely believe, in such a way that they can be understood over a range of intellectual abilities and knowledge. They are as much about what is excluded as included, and generally are produced in response to some external threat. A creed will generally manifest as an ideology.

• Epigenetics refers to the heritable changes in gene expression or phenotype that don't involve changes in the DNA sequence.
  

Applicability in Cynefin: In context with its use of the natural sciences (naturalising sense-making)

• Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Epistemology is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with ethics, logic, and metaphysics.

• Exaptation is the taking of an idea, concept, tool, method, framework (etc...) intended to address one thing, and using it to address a different thing, often in another domain.

• Fluffy bunnies is an idiom coined by David Snowden. It refers to new age platitudes and idealistic leadership models. The term originated in contrast to techno-fetishists.

• A framework provides a way, or better ways, of looking at the world or an aspect of the world. Ideally, a framework provides different perspectives on an issue. It allows things to be looked at from those perspectives. Frameworks can be taxonomies or typologies with the latter less prone to category errors. They can be social constructs, based on research or derived from some body of underlying theory. Cynefin® for example is a typology derived from theory, but the fact that said theory implies phase shifts means that it also as some taxonomic qualities.

• Granularity often used in the phrase decompose to the lowest level of coherent granularity is not the same thing as component analysis which could be a subset of it, grains interlock and interact and clump

• A manifesto is an ideological statement of how things should be, or more frequently how they should not be. Such documents generally represent themselves, with varying degrees of verisimilitude, as revolutionary or transformational in nature. They may be nailed to church doors to make a point or written up in books or pamphlets. They always require transition but rarely pay attention to the process of transition; they are visionary, focused on a desired future state or a despised present state.

• A method represents a defined process or processes which if followed produce defined results. It may incorporate other methods and may have ideological aspects associated with its adoption or rejection but at its heart it provides a repeatable way of achieving results which reduced the need to reinvention (that can be good or bad by the way)

• A model seeks to represent reality, or more appropriately some aspect of the world. It allows for simulation and exploration without encountering the irreversibility of reality. The cliché rightly says that all models are wrong, but some are useful, but the cliché is linked to the nature of a model and its claims; it is not a universal statement.

• Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality. It includes the questions of how entities are grouped into basic categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontology is sometimes referred to as the science of being and belongs to the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. Ontologists often try to determine what the categories or highest kinds are and how they form a system of categories that provides an encompassing classification of all entities.

• Phenomenology Phenomenology (from Greek phainómenon "that which appears" and lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness.

• Semiotics(also called semiotic studies) is the study of sign processes (semiosis), which are any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, where a sign is defined as anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the sign's interpreter. The meaning can be intentional such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional, such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. Signs can communicate through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory. The semiotic tradition explores the study of signs and symbols as a significant part of communications. Unlike linguistics, semiotics also studies non-linguistic sign systems. Semiotics includes the study of signs and sign processes, indication, designation, likeness, analogy, allegory, metonymy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication.

• Sense-making is how we make sense of the world in order to act in it.

From discussion page

For major concepts please always link to an article - no definition should exceed a small paragraph, for anything longer create an article

Please maintain alphabetical listing

As this article grows it may be split into sub-sections.

Proposal: merge Definitions and Concepts into Glossary -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Method

Proposal - Revise the definition as follows "A Method is a repeatable process, relying on certain concepts, frameworks, and principles, that produces desired outputs out of certain inputs, in a certain context, for a certain purpose", and expand the other aspects of the concept in a "Method" dedicated page to be created. -----Luca Orlassino^T-A-L-K 10:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Specific vs General Epistemology/Ontology/Semiotics/Phenomenology

The request was to add a definition of AN epistemology, AN ontology, A semiotics and A phenomenology. The definitions are of the fields more generally and less helpful in terms of understanding, for example, philosophical groupings of ideas in the context of Cynefin (rather than in general).— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCrowe (talk • contribs)

If you want to give it more pertinence in regards to Cynefin, I would offer to put directly "The epistemology of Cynefin" etc and give your definition. Because by using "A", it remains vague. It's like saying what is the definition of "A science", but you're still not saying which science, whereas if you're saying "The science of physics", then you can become more precise. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, my suspicion is that Cynefin doesn't have a single ontology or epistemology? --DavidCrowe (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That would mean people are competing about what exactly Cynefin is about. Do you think it's the case? Because that would mean you'll start having different branches within Cynefin where people start creating different type of specific knowledge related to different ways to embrace the terms. I would say for now it remains consistent and didn't branch, but maybe I'm wrong. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it means that there are competing versions of Cynefin, but that different (for example) ontologies are used depending on the particular problem at hand. I think I need to think about that more, but I think Cynefin is quite pragmatic rather than principled ontologically? --DavidCrowe (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Apparently in Computer Sciences ontology means something else than in Philosophy. That could bring up misunderstandings and different views. ---Corinalupu (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we offer definitions available on Wikipedia/elsewhere?

This wiki should be more than just a collection of information you can obtain elsewhere, so echoing definitions (from Wikipedia, for example) adds little value, and will require maintenance should the external definition change. I'm of the opinion that definitions should be original and not duplications. (Repetition without creativity is a dead act.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCrowe (talk • contribs)

I am not sure how useful it is to copy definitions that exist elsewhere either. But, for me, either those definitions disappear and the terms are linked to the wikipedia content, either we take directly the definition created by specialists. Because unless the goal is to define terms which are specific to Cynefin (like Cynefin), I don't see the point in inventing our own definition of terms already well referenced by experts. To me it would be like saying, because I am using the word "chair", I want to create my own definition instead of duplicating the one in the dictionary. But maybe I'm misunderstanding, and you had something else in mind. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess my point was more that if the word is better defined elsewhere, should we be defining it? --DavidCrowe (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, then I totally agree with you. Maybe the standard definitions could be erased and then we would add a link to wikipedia when used in a generic sense. ---Corinalupu (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)