Every term in Instrumentation will have several pieces of information associated with it. This section defines those pieces of information.
The Instrumentation data store can have many uses. These columns
provide the data needed to support those uses. They could also
enable periodic statistics
showing the growth of the vocabulary in many dimensions.
Ultimately this data would be stored in a central repository
where it would be available to any instrumentation appliance (and
anyone else). Only the basic and syntactic terms would normally be
stored on the users physical device. This combination would
provide speed and flexibility without undue squandering of
resources.
Every term has one unique meaning. No other term has this meaning. This term does not have any other meaning. Instrumentation does not have synonyms. Everyone still has a good time.
This field may also contain links to visual
or audible resources that help to explain the term.
What this term does. This may be quite lengthy for some Specialized terms. If this term requires data to perform its function, this field should describe the number and data types of its parameters. Not every term will have a function. Here are two examples of functional documentation from the Articulation layer:
This can be a concise explanation of the relationship between the
associated elements and this term or it can be a story, a poem, a
picture, etc. The real requirements are that it must be
applicable, useful and memorable. This is what will help people
remember the location, meaning and function of this term. I have
tried to give examples of the rationales for the terms in the tutorials.
Among Specialized terms and especially within the 'Command' area,
the rationale may reference strategies for using this term in
combination with other terms. This method would focus on the
fingering of the chord rather than the meaning of the Types (and,
the fingering of the chord is the location anyway).
This will give individuals the ability to find or to avoid
certain terms.
The classes are things such as: sex, violence, money, politics, religion, etc.
I realize that most people only want to restrict the terms that others can see, but slang, euphemisms and Personal Vocabularies can be used to overcome that tendency and there are times when this could be a useful feature.This is the ideal result of the "scientific process". In law enforcement it is called "a documented chain of evidence". In history (and 'professional' news to a lesser extent) it is called "a corroborated first person eye-witness account". In scholarship it is called "published refereed citations". This is the one thing that Wikipedia can never achieve (and they are still totally awesome). Sadly, this is also what this otherwise estimable website currently lacks (including this statement, in places).
The procedure for updating this field will include all rules
developed for the disciplines above. When Instrumentation is
managed by the International Organization for Standardization
(which is called ISO, for obvious reasons), this is where they
will earn their keep.
This field will contain a link to the 'best reference' (which may
even be a 'book' in a 'library') and a keyword that describes the
level of truthfulness. The keywords will be things such as
'physical' (for Oxygen and other denizens of the Chemical Rubber
Compound handbook), 'eye-witness' (with a named, reliable and
verifiable source), 'opinion' (for things such as 'beauty'),
'unknown' (this is where every term starts and it is the most
commonly found keyword), etc. The official list of keywords will
be kept as small and as self-explanatory as possible.
Truth must be legally protected. Misusing this field is vandalism and endangers public safety. The perpetrators (see 'User ID' and 'revision log' below) will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is my serious face.
OK, I could go on for hours on this one, but here at the
Instrumentation Institute of Inference our first priority is
global domination and I have other plots to foil-proof.
If this term is needed by another term (like "the value of" is
used by 'and' above), the back-reference will be listed here. This
may (someday) serve to indicate that a term in the Specialization
Layer should actually be in Articulation.
Eventually everyone in the world will have a unique random two-glyph "Galactic Postal Code" (GPC). This can theoretically provide unique codes for over 32 quintillion people. This should be enough to cover the human population of the milky way galaxy for multiple human lifetimes before any keys would need to be re-used. (a billion stellar systems with ten billion people each would require ten quintillion codes)
Using Instrumentation would reduce this code from a twenty digit
decimal number (or two signed eight digit hexadecimal numbers) to
a unique two-term code. A GPC would normally be something
like "Penicillin Brontosaurus". This is easier to remember than a
nine digit "Zip-Code", and it is tied to an individual rather than
a location so it can
be used for electronic as well as physical delivery.
For those worried about security, everyone could also have
four-glyph public and private keys.
These would be 132 bit keys, but they would be represented by four
terms each. A key that can easily be memorized need not be written
down or saved in computer memory and is, therefore, much more
secure. Larger keys could be used by anyone who has a greater need
for secure communication.
The postal code would normally remain connected to a person for
life. The cryptography keys could be changed at the whim of the
user, or when they were suspected of being compromised. There are
a lot of trust protocols that need to be ratified globally and
processes that need to be implemented before this can become a
secure workable system, but the current hodgepodge of outdated
local systems is already inadequate for modern communication
needs.
Unfortunately, not every Instrumentation index can be used as a
key. Many terms are unfilled and other existing terms probably
aren't suitable for use. Any term that is not unique, such as
right as in turn or right as in correct, should not be used. All
'official' Instrumentation languages (Mandarin, Spanish, English, Hindi/Urdu,
Arabic, Bengali, Portuguese, Russian and Japanese to start) would have to
be checked for Homonyms. The list below contains several complete
areas that would not be used.
True Key-worthiness would mean that the current term is unique
and suitable for use as part of a key. This field will simplify
the selection of valid terms for key creation.
This is the person who suggested this as a candidate term. The actual identity of the Author will be released one hundred years after the last "Creation Date" associated with this ID unless the Author requests perpetual anonymity.
Anonymity would cover all terms submitted by the same ID.
If you want your friends to believe that you actually submitted a
term, just use your full name as your ID. (other solutions may be
possible)
Probably the date that the term was suggested or approved
(haven't decided yet).
This would be a pointer to a list of User IDs, dates, changes and
ostensible reasons therefore. These changes would not include the
complete replacement of the term (see next field).
The list is separate from the term tuple because they form a
'dependent' relationship (it is a normal
form data base thing).
This is a pointer to the term that this term replaced. All
previous terms will be saved in a "previous terms" data store. As
Instrumentation ages it will be possible to maintain a clear and
unquestionable trail for future etymologists and social
scientists.
When the vocabulary is mature (when all thematic bugs have been harmonized), continuing changes will mirror the evolution of the culture that uses it.
The current prototype vocabulary will not be part of the "previous term" data store because it would skew the results of any analysis of term changes (and frighten small children). I assume that a copy of the prototype vocabulary will be enshrined in the Smithsonian (or the Louvre) for the edification of future generations.
Someone submitting a new term must write the text for the meaning, the function and the rationale and then select applicable term classes. If the term is rejected because of errors in one of those areas, the term may be corrected with a revision log entry. If the term is rejected because it is vandalistic, it can not be resubmitted. Free speech and factual accuracy are separate issues. Only I get to hide Easter eggs amongst the terms, you can put 'goatse' in your personal vocabulary, if you like.
