IMCG: Lagow Meeting

Lagow Meeting Contribution

DRAFT - Mire Terminology - DRAFT
A Review of Requirements for Accurate Communication in Mire Science

Presented at the IMCG Lagow Workshop by

Ronald Hofstetter

Department of Biology, University of Miami, Florida, USA

March, 2000.

Introduction

?This presentation provides a summary of relevant material presented and discussed at the 1998 and ‘99 IMCG Workshops on Terminology.

It is widely acknowledged that the science and conservation of mires is seriously hindered at the global level by the lack of a

universal terminology for mires types and features and
classification of global mire types.

Terminology problems occur when:

term is not adequately defined (e.g., "patterned wetland")
term has >1 meaning (e.g., "swamp"),
an object has >1 term, but those terms are not exact synonyms, so 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 among users(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 English "moor"),
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),
term is too regional or restricted geographically in its application to be understood widely (e.g. "pocosin"),
there is a common "object" for which there is no acceptable, defined term (e.g., wetland without peat).

Universal Mire Lexicon

At the ‘98 IMCG Workshop there was an expressed goal to develop a global mire terminology — a Universal Mire Lexicon.

At the ’99 IMCG Workshop it was agreed to continue with development of two parallel approaches for a new mire lexicon:

Select the best existing terms and refine their definitions.
Develop a set of new terms and definitions.

?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 distinguishing, describing, explaining and classifying mires through-out the world, and for communicating information concerning mires.

?Ideally, the new Universal Mire Lexicon (UML) should be simultaneously developed with the new Universal Mire Classification System (UMCS); the UMCS should identify what terms need to be identified and defined in the UML.

Requirements of Accurate Communication:

Accurate communication has three requirements:

1) The "sender" properly identifies the "object" and selects the appropriate "symbol" (= term) for that object,

2) The "sender" and the "receiver" have

?a) the same set of rules for connecting "objects" and "symbols" that stand for those objects,

?b) that they both identify that set of rules that they are using and

c) that they both use those rules without error.

A LEXICON is a list of the rules connecting those objects and symbols. (e.g., dictionary)

3) There are no errors in transmission (i.e., no "signal degradation") between the sender and the receiver.

?(Signal degradation may result from: poor telephone connection, typing error, misunderstood spoken accent, excessive background noise, etc.)

Identifying Suitable Terms

IDEALLY, terms for our consideration should

minimally address
general, global fresh-water mire/wetland types,
basic, freshwater wetland/mire features,
have single application universally,
not be excessively long and cumbersome,
not be difficult to communicate,
be unambiguously defined,
have published reference(s) showing proper usage,
have identified synonymy in other lexicons.

Rules for Use of EXISTING Terms

Decreasing priority for the identification and use an EXISTING terms:

Term is

1. now used uniformly globally, and is

?a) adequately defined for global application, or

?b) adequately defined for regional application; or

2. suitable for global usage, but has not been applied, and

?a) is adequately defined for global usage, or

?b) not yet adequately defined for global usage; or

3. common in >1 region, but not globally, and is

?a) adequately defined for regional use, or

?b) not yet adequately defined for regional use; or

4. consistent within a region, but not consistent among regions, and is

?a) adequately defined for its widest geographic usage, or

?b) not adequately defined for its widest usage; or

5. not consistent within a region, and is

?a) adequately defined for widest usage, or

?b) not adequately defined for widest usage.

Risks of Using Existing Terms

?The risk in selecting an existing term that has been used in different ways and then selecting one of the existing definitions or modifying an existing definition is that some people may continue to use the term incorrectly without their audience knowing.

?Therefore, definitions of existing terms should NOT be altered significantly, but should be refined only to eliminate confusion. Even then the risk of inaccurate communication exists after a new lexicon is formally accepted.

Good Definitions

A good definition should:

be accurate,
be unambiguous,
be complete,
be concise,
Adequately define the limits of the object,
provide a statement of identity or equivalence,
be without comparative expressions,
not use a word with the same root as the word being defined,
not use circular logic,
distinguish each object-term from other similar or related objects-terms,
provide an example for clarification,
identify existing synonymy and
should cite the earliest reference using that definition.

Rules For Testing Suitability of Terms

The following questions should produce a "Yes" answer for determining the suitability of a term:

Is this term necessary?
Is this the "best" term for this application?
Is this usage the only one for this term?
Is this usage consistent with past usage?
Is the definition adequate in detail for current and possible future applications?
Can the term be used in a consistent manner in many languages of countries where such wetlands occur?
Does this term show the appropriate relationship (in definition) to associated terms?
Has the citation of this term in its proper usage been identified?
Has the term and its definition been adequately reviewed?
Have synonymous terms been identified?
Have related terms that should no longer be used been identified?
Have definitions that should no longer be used been identified?

Home