---

GREIFSWALD MEETING 1998

---

Universal Mire Lexicon

Communication Problems

In mire literature and verbal exchanges, communication problems involving mire terminology are widespread and serious. Typical problems occur when:

• term is not adequately defined (e.g., "patterned wetland"),
• term has >1 meaning (e.g., "swamp"),
• object has >1 term, but those terms are not exact synonyms, misunderstanding results when the wrong term is used (e.g., "wetland", "mire", "muskeg"),
• term in common usage has meaning not identical to the same term in scientific usage (e.g., "bog"),
• term in common usage has several meanings, one is identical to the same term in scientific usage where it has a specific meaning (e.g., "swamp"),
• term in scientific usage has >1 meaning (e.g. "swamp"),
• the same term occurs in different languages, but the equivalency is not exact or is unknown (e.g., "moor" as in the UK, "moor" in the US, & "das Moor" in German),
• term is translated incorrectly from one language to another (e.g. German "das Moor" to "moor" in US English),
• term is incorporated directly from one language into another (= transliteration) in which there is a similar term (e.g., German "der Strang" and English "string"),
• term in one language can not be easily written or spoken in other languages (e.g., Chinese to English and vice versa),
• term is too specialized or restricted geographically in its application to be understood widely (e.g. "pocosin"),
• there is an "object" for which there is no acceptable, defined term (e.g., wetland without peat).

   

  Because mire studies have occurred in many countries over several centuries there is an abundance of literature and mire terms in many languages. Although there have been several attempts to produce a lists of equivalent terms, no list is completely acceptable and widely available. As more workers become involved and more publications result in mire studies, communication problems related to differences in mire terminology become compounded.

   

  Good Communication:

  Good communication has two requirements:

  1. A "sender" and a "receiver" must have the same set of rules for connecting "objects" and "symbols" (= terms) that stand for those objects, and that they identify that set of rules and use those rules without error. A LEXICON is a list of the rules connecting those objects and symbols. (e.g., dictionary)

   

   

  Example of a Simple Lexicon:

  Object	Terms
  A	1
  B	2
  C	3
  D	4
  K	11

   

  Objects A, B, C, & D are related, K is not so related.

   

•  

  2) Good communication also requires that there are no errors in transmission (= no "signal degradation") between the sender and the receiver. (Signal degradation may result from: poor telephone connection, typing error, misunderstood spoken accent, etc.)

   

  Both sender and receiver use the same lexicon, but ...

   

• the term received differs from the term sent.

  ["signal degradation"]

   

  Terminology

  Accurate association between an "object" and its "term" requires that the "term" be precisely and accurately defined so as to convey precisely and accurately the sense of the "object".

   

  The definition must identify the "object" and provide the necessary information to enable the user to associate precisely and accurately the "object" with its "term" and vice versa.

   

  Good Definitions

  A good definition should be a precise and accurate statement of the nature of an object and use words and expressions that:

  • are concise and unambiguous to the user,
  • are known and understood by the user, and
  • are not demonstrative or comparative.
  • does not use a word with the same root as the word or term being defined,
  • does not use circular logic,
  • defines the limits of the object,
  • provides a parallel statement of identity or equivalence,
  • distinguish this object-term from other similar or related objective-terms, and
  • provides an example for clarification.

   

  Universal Mire Lexicon

  Mire science needs a Universal Mire Lexicon. The Universal Mire Lexicon (UML) is the list of rules for connecting mire "objects" (e.g., mire types, components, characteristics and processes) with appropriate, unique, mire terms for purposes of describing, explaining, distinguishing, and classifying mires throughout the world, and for communicating information concerning mires.

   

  The UML is a pre-requisite or a co-requisite for the development of a Universal Mire Classification System (UMCS); the UMCS will dictate what terms need to be identified and defined.

   

  What should the ideal UML be? Should the UML be:

  • only general terms and concepts? NO.
  • Only a "conversion table" of existing terms? NO.
  • complete, replacing existing lexicons? YES.
  • dynamic, with periodic "fine tuning"? YES.

   

  Could a standard lexicon could be created by

  • declaring one or more existing lexicons as the "standard(s)"? NO
  • just selecting the "best" terms from existing lexicons? NO
  • creating new terms? IF NECESSARY
  • some combination of the above? YES

   

  How will the UML be developed & by whom?

  • Development of concepts and rules should begin at this IMCG workshop;
  • A workshop subgroup and others who are interested should continue the development, incorporating others' ideas, and completing the draft UML;
  • The draft lexicon should be posted on a web site with requests for comments;
  • This subgroup presents the draft UML to the next workshop;
  • This subgroup (+ others?) modifies draft the UML as needed per comments and produces the "final" version of the UML.

   

  What is the proposed timetable for development & introduction of the UML?

  • March, '98, Greifswald Workshop - determine nature and scope, assign responsibilities, begin development of the UML, identify WWW home page.
  • April, '99, IMCG Classification & Terminology Workshop in Budweise, Czech Republic - Present, discuss, and revise draft UML.
  • Summer 2000: Present (talk & poster) "final" UML at IPS Millennium Wetlands Event, IMCG Conference, INTECOL 6th International Wetland Symposium, SWS Conference, & ??

   

  How will the UML be reviewed? It will be:

  • posted on the IMCG Web page,
  • sent to members of IMCG, IPS, and others who express interest,
  • presented as talks & posters:
  • at conferences and symposia,
  • at special session at conferences/workshops,
  • at special conferences/workshops, and
  • printed in scientific journals and publications,

  all with requests for comments.

   

  Communication and the UML:

  Communication in mire science may still be unsatisfactory unless the Universal Mire Lexicon has been:

  • adequately reviewed and accepted,
  • "officially sanctioned",
  • adequately promoted,
  • written in the necessary languages,
  • readily available, and
  • required in usage.

   

  Alternatives to a Universal Mire Lexicon:

  There is no satisfactory alternative to a UML. For example:

  Do nothing, and errors and confusion will continue to increase.

  This is not a reasonable option to many (most?) students of mires.

   

  Provide a clear meaning of terms used by:

  • including a glossary of terms used in every new publication (journal, book, report), or
  • including definitions of (critical) terms in each new report and publication, or
  • citing a published reference that has a definition for each (critical) term used in each new publication.

  Providing a clear meaning of terms used in each publication is:

  Wasteful of printed space, and

  • Will Not eliminate confusion because
  • each author's paradigms may not be identical,
  • publications may not have identical lexicons,
  • publications may not enforce terminology requirements,
  • critical references may not have be identified.

A serious effort must begin immediately to develop a UNIVERSAL MIRE LEXICON of standardized mire terms.