Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:
Let me recall there's a proposed corollary to Godwin's law
http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg15449.html
]
] I think that as soon as you start quoting the dictionary, you've lost
] the argument.
I thoroughly disagree. Perhaps quoting the dictionary "starts a
different" argument, but citing a scholar's opinion on derivation and
usage gives us something to focus on. IMHO, this aids the process of
convergence.
] In any technical field, one needs jargon as a shorthand to refer to
] agreed concepts.
Perhaps there is such a need during development -- to refer to a
concept succinctly -- but it's fatal to standards-setting to use
poorly-defined words, and IMHO it's at best "sloppy" in documenting
research.
] When you start quoting the dictionary, you're arguing that some word
] has only its conventional meaning
That would be _misquoting_ a dictionary. I presume competent writers
to not need to "misquote".
] Words like responsible, accredit, certify, are evolving into jargon,
] but we haven't yet come to consensus on what if any jargon meaning
] they have.
If there's _no_ consensus, using them to describe research is a
bad idea. (In standard and law-writing, it's OK to include your own
definitions. In describing research, such re-definitions confuse
the reader.)
] The dictionary doesn't help, so leave it out of this discussion, please.
I thoroughly disagree!
reputation [??r??pj????te??????n]
n
1. the estimation in which a person or thing is generally held; opinion
2. a high opinion generally held about a person or thing; esteem
3. notoriety or fame, esp for some specified characteristic
have a reputation to be known or notorious, esp for promiscuity,
excessive drinking, or the like
For starters, that's three rather different meanings... I'd argue
that the third is the one closest to the concept we're discussing.
At any rate, please note the "generally held" part, which seems quite
essential to me...
... but it goes with the first definition, not the third...
Thus, reputation would connote the shared facets of the experience.
I can't think of an existent "reputation service" which aims for that.
Instead, they aim at "notoriety", and try to make early calls of that.
====
Obviously, there are folks posting here who may be fixed on the first
or second defitions above. I believe quoting the dictionary may be the
best way to clarify the confusion of what we're actually discussing...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg