Names, choices and classification

A shared vocabulary does more than standardise spelling. It explains what a term means, which choices belong together and what an organising hierarchy does—and does not—claim.

The thing, the concept and the words

Flat 1 at Harbour Court is a fictional dwelling. A defined concept used to classify it—perhaps “flat”—is not that dwelling. The text displayed for that concept is a label. Keeping these apart lets someone use familiar words without making the words responsible for deciding identity.

A vocabulary can give one concept a preferred label and several alternative labels for the same meaning in its scope. That does not establish that “flat” and “apartment” are interchangeable everywhere. First compare the definitions and the intended use. If they differ materially, calling them synonyms conceals the question rather than resolving it.

Inspect a term, not just a word list

This specimen belongs to a fictional teaching vocabulary about physical access during inspections. It is not an approved OPDA value or a professional inspection standard.

The definition does work the label cannot do alone. “Partial” might otherwise mean part of a day, some documents or limited visibility within every area. The example shows an ordinary case; the exclusions block plausible misunderstandings. A code helps exchange the choice, but an inherited code such as “P” could mean something else in another source.

A preferred-label edit from “Access to some agreed areas” to “Some agreed areas accessed” could leave the meaning unchanged. Extending the definition to include access to none would change meaning, even if the code and displayed label stayed the same. Review the definition, not just the text diff.

A choice list needs a scope

For this lesson, the question is precisely: which proportion of a nonempty, identified set of agreed areas was physically accessed during one identified visit? Each area either was or was not accessed under the exercise's stated convention. We have complete evidence for those outcomes when selecting a choice.

Under these premises the choices do not overlap, and they cover every known access outcome. The nonempty scope matters: with no agreed areas, ordinary “all” and “none” wording becomes misleading. Unknown access evidence is a different problem. It cannot be converted into “None” simply because no access statement arrived.

A closed choice list means a particular use permits only its defined choices until the list is deliberately revised. It does not mean the world contains only the three inspection events already on a screen. Newly identified dwellings and inspections can join an open population without becoming new vocabulary values.

A topic tree is not a diagram of a building's parts

A broader/narrower topic relationship helps someone browse from a general subject to a more specific one. A kind-of relationship makes a different claim about what things are. A physical part-of relationship makes another. One drawing convention should not let those meanings slide into each other unnoticed.

Correspondence is more than matching labels

A recipient might define “restricted access” to include both some access and no access. Our “Some” choice then has a narrower meaning, not merely a less confident exact match. The worked correspondence compares the definitions and demonstrates the information lost in substitution.

A useful vocabulary review supplies an ordinary case, an exclusion and the question the choice must answer. It need not propose the code or technical notation. For a complete applied exercise, use Review choices and mappings.

The canonical glossary and method decision register remain shared references. These teaching specimens are not another maintained candidate vocabulary.