Definitions (was something else)

[Rob Seaman]

> I would say that each vocabulary is meant to have its own  
> definition. This could be the same as another vocabularies  
> definition for the term, but it should be explicitly stated in each  
> vocabulary.

In that case, I'm concerned that we're suddenly:

1) signing on to generate thousands of definitions;

2) planning to extend other people's work without consulting them  
about what they really thought each term meant;

3) cross-linking terms asserted to be synonyms that may have subtly  
(or drastically) different definitions;

4) have established the need to link to external definitions, if only  
in other lists;

5) dramatically raised the bar for future participants.

Suggestion:

Can we make the definitions optional?  ("zero or more", "0..*")

Can we instead collect a separate master list of numbered definitions  
that are linked to each entry, rather than embedded?

In this way, the author(s) of a list can assert a definition and later  
users of the list can revise this via definitions that may already  
exist (and that may be shared with other lists).  Adding a new  
definition is trivial.  Stale definitions can be retired simply by  
replaced text in the master list with a link (just as real  
dictionaries might do, e.g., "see entry PLANTAIN" - in our case, "see  
entry 1234").

May I also say that writing a thousand short descriptions may be many  
times the work of writing one coherent passage a thousand times as  
long.  Ask any poet about the overhead of finding just the right  
words.  (Or better yet, can we find an actual dictionary author to  
comment on our work products?)

I am unpersuaded by the argument that any old paragraph will do to get  
the gist of each term.  Either few will consult these definitions - in  
which case, why do the work? - or many will, and it should thus be the  
best the VO can produce.

- Rob