[Ontology-editors] use of word "gloss" Re: plant-type terms etc.

[Amelia Ireland]

On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Diehl wrote:

> "Gloss" seems to be favored by the more ontologically oriented for  
> the bits of a definition that provide clarification to the  
> definition for human readers, according to one of the definitions of  
> the word:
>
> gloss2
> noun
> a translation or explanation of a word or phrase.


If you check it out on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloss),  
the first lines in the article state:

A gloss is a brief summary of a word's meaning, equivalent to the  
dictionary entry of that word, but only a word or two in length. It is  
typically used for the meaning of a word in another language, and  
hence a simple translation.

This definition appears almost completely opposite to the  
objectionable usage of the term! I also find that 'gloss' has  
disturbing associations with painting and lipstick, and on those  
grounds alone, I would recommend abandoning 'gloss' and using  
something a good deal less connotative.

--
Amelia Ireland
GO Editorial Office
http://www.berkeleybop.org || http://www.ebi.ac.uk
BBOP Plant Project: http://bbopgarden.blogspot.com