Problems with definition of "image"

[zhengj2007]

From [email protected] on September 19, 2011 23:57:42

Raised in a discussion relating to IAO at the UB Applied Ontology meeting, by Barry Smith.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Barry Smith [email protected] wrote:

This breaks multiple rules

definition "An image is an affine projection to a two dimensional surface, of measurements of some quality of an entity or entities repeated at regular intervals across a spatial range, where the measurements are represented as color and luminosity on the projected on surface."@en

It is not Aristotelian It uses terms far more complex than the term to be defined

Fair criticisms. I will certainly change the label to be more specific. I do think the type captures an important class of information content entity, so the tasks are to:

a) Find a better label for this class

b) See whether we can come up with a definition that corresponds better to the common meaning of "image" as it would be used in the information sense (I'm not sure your shadow qualifies, but I am thinking about it).

c) Consider whether the definition can be simplified. Given the choice of being clear and "good enough to be wrong" and using simpler terms (some issues here - I might challenge you to define a "simpler than" comparison that can operate across terms as different than these) I would err on the side of being clear as to what instances the term denotes.

I will add an issue to our issues list to record this after I hit send.

-Alan

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/detail?id=121