[1] Avoid using the word "definition" for this initial work;
[2] Use the word "reference" instead; "in this context, we will use the
word "----" to refer to such activities as "...". This makes clear
that you're prescribing only circumstantial, contextual stipulations, not
writing a corporate-specific dictionary.
[3] Don't even introduce these until the activities referred to have
been thoroughly articulated *without* *mentioning* the words
"development", "training", and "education", at least not self-consciously
(what I mean by this is: in discussion, if somebody happens incidentally
to use one of these words, don't draw attention to it in your response).
The mushiest concept in the English language is "define". Confronted with
a task such as you describe, I picture stripping all the existing terms
and concepts and stuff off the situation, like getting varnish off an old
piece of furniture to find out what's really underneath. In this case,
that would leave us with a primordial sort of "basic english" account of
the company and the circumstances. Into this, we would reintroduce,
carefully and deliberately, a minimum of additional concepts, maybe as
shorthand expressions for shared understandings...
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen
jamzen@world.std.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: : : : : : : Ideas are cheap; : : \ : : : :
: : : : : Good ideas don't cost any more than lousy ones. : : : : :
: : : It's distinguishing them that's expensive. : : :
On Mon, 24 Apr 1995 jack@his.com wrote:
>
> To help get things started well, I have agreed to propose working
> definitions of "development", "training" and "education" and how
> their meanings differ.
>