This project sounds pretty much what Sharon Poggenpohl started a while ago
but did not pursue to the end for lack of funding.  Perhaps we should
consult her for her experiences.
klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Pradeep Yammiyavar
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Definitions, Compendia, and Dictionaries

Dear  Colleagues,
 Ken's  suggestions are worth perusing. The first method  ( " collecting
existing citations, definitions....") is feasible to start with. However
sooner or later the second approach of defining terms etc will have to be
addressed, especially in a multi disciplinary and interdisciplinary area
like Design. The logistic problems of how to go about it  will always exist.
More suggestions like the one given by Chris Kemmett ( "use some of the
collaborative software that is freely
available (e.g. wikis). will be helpful. Unfortunately many of us may not be
aware of how wiks works.

A language dictionary has 50,000 terms of which we can use about 5000 at the
best.  A technical compendium for Design ( at the moment I am more
comfortable with the word "Compendium" rather than Dictionary for reasons
highlighted by Ken. Also I am taking liberty to classify Design under the
broad category of Technology) may not have so many terms. I suggest that,
to start with all of us can list words - just the words we use in Design
activities especially those we find contentious /controversial
/fuzzy/uncomfortable during discussions with collogues from other
disciplines.  ( For example Design Technology"). Perhaps to this list we can
keep adding words / terms commonly used by designers. This addition can be
done by all of us resulting in a compendium of words used most frequently in
Design by Designers. This could be a good start under the broad guide lines
of Ken's first method. Such a list resulting from allaround contributions
can bring to light many terms designers  'invent' during use.  Once this
list is ready we can then throw open the list of words to the  listmembers ,
who can cite definitions / meanings published else where and also define
them the way they would like to. At this stage Ken's compilation can be used
for reference and discussion and adaptation.  I also suggest that we do not
begin by terms such as "Design" or "Designer". We can  declare peace by
stating that " every definition /meaning of the term Design that can exist
on earth is acceptable to us."  We can later cut out those not useful to us.
Of course  due acknowledgement to all the contributors of original
definitions will have to be made. Also one needs to acknowledge  any work
already done in this direction. More suggestions from members on issues of
copy rights etc  as pointed out by Ken can indicate a direction out of the
maze. All this requires contribution in terms of time and effort. I cannot
help but echo François-X. N.I. NSENGA 's request : " Would then be someone
or a team out there to work specifically......". I am willing to list down
the words  which I find contentious and controversial when I use them with
my collogues who have engineering and Marketing  / management   back ground.
Often they ask for  sources of authority when ever I stick to my definitions
of the words as used in Design teaching & Practice. I will add to the list
as and when I can.  How wonder full it would be  If I had a source,
acceptable to all Designers, to quote and which other like the one mentioned
by John Broadbent.

Here is my list of words to start with.
Design Concept
Design solution
Conceptual.
Visualisation
Product Anatomy.
Product Physiognomy
Product Phisiography.
Design Creativity
Design Problem
Design Brief.
Design thinking
Design Management.
Product.
Usability engineering.

Pradeep.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Friedman [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:21 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Definitions, Compendia, and Dictionaries
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Chris, Francois, and Pardeep have all suggested a compendium of
> dictionary.
> There are two ways to go about this kind of project. One works. The other
> is problematic.
>
> The way that works is to collect existing citations, definitions, and
> usage
> examples from the literature. This is fairly slow, painstaking work, but
> very helpful in the long run. Since it is often to establish definitions
> in
> writing up research -- defining words as they will be used in the article
> at hand -- I have built a dictionary into which I place definitions
> harvested from lexicographic and expert literature sources on words that I
> occasionally study.
>
> Major dictionaries such as OED or Merriam-Webster's begin with ciration
> indexes, examplesof words in use., etc.
>
> If it were to be seriously interesting to members of this list to generate
> such a project, I can see ways to do this.
>
> The other approach would be to try to write definitions or establish them.
> This is generally difficult for several reasons. The first is that this
> requires a high level of editorial and lexicographic skill. These are
> specific domains of expertise, and most fields (including our own) have
> relatively few people who are expert editors, and nearly no people with
> lexicographic expertise.
>
> I am traveling this week, and following the threads via the web, so I
> won't
> discuss the possibilities and challenges of this kind of project. It is
> worth considering. If done right, a good compilation should be reasonably
> manageable. GGood harvesting takes time. Even so, I'd say that one could
> make genuine progress in a period of two or three years.
>
> An interdisciplinary field with many positions, many forms of practice,
> and
> many research streams faces challenges that are in some ways greater than
> those visibile in most fields. That makes this kind of project even more
> important and necessary than it is in many fields, and far more difficult.
>
> I'd avoid attempting to develop definitions or even to secure agreement on
> definitions until a proper harvest is cimpleted. One reason is pragmatic
> --
> if people find such a dictionary less than expert, they won't use it and
> the work is liable to be wasted. Another reason is equally pragmatic --
> unless one is expert enough to write one's own definitions, it is
> difficult
> to complete such a task. Even IF one is expert, completing more than a few
> definitions or articles takes more time than most of us would be willing
> to
> put in. (See Mario Bunge's Dictionary of Philosophy, for example, for a
> good single-author dictionary, or Charles Francois's systems dictionary
> mentioned by John Broadbent for a massive single-editor compilation with
> significant interpretive and authorial work.)
>
> Sharon Poggenpohl and her doctoral candidates at IIT did some definition
> work a few years ago. I don't know what finally came of it, but I know
> they
> faced and addressed many challenges and difficulties even in the pilot
> stage. Perhaps Sharon or one of the editors involved would post a note
> here
> to tell us about their experiences.
>
> I will think about the possibilities of working with some colleagues here
> in Scandinavia to expand my harvest dictionary -- now over 300 pages --
> and
> make it available in regular editions. (There are also going to be some
> important technical questions, f.ex., quotation, citation, and copyright
> issues. As a single scholar carefully quoting definitions and citing
> sources, I am free under copyright law to compile and use this dictionary.
> To make it available to others, I must be careful not to step over the
> line
> from scholarship under fair use provisions into publishing.) If we can
> find
> a way to do this, we can also find a more systematic way to harvest
> definitions than one person alone can do, and then we can ask the larger
> field to join in.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken Friedman