Triangle of Meaning

The triangle of meaning (a.k.a. triangle of reference) was first introduced in  the book The Meaning of Meaning by Charles Kay Ogden and I. A. Richards which was published in 1923. The purpose of the triangle of meaning is to understand how to make communication reliable, repeatable, and interoperable. Basically the triangle of meaning is about precision of communication.

There are many different versions of the triangle of meaning. Several other versions are mentioned under additional information below. Mainly these triangle of meaning representations are for domains such as linguistics, philosophy, and knowledge engineering and use specialized jargon to explain what they are trying to explain.  I find all of these too hard for the typical business professional to understand.

And so, what I did was to take the best aspects of these other triangles of meaning and synthesize the information into something that I can understand and perhaps other business professionals can also understand. This is the triangle of meaning that I came up with:

Let me explain what I am trying to show with my triangle of meaning above. There are three corners in the triangle:

• Meaning: At the top of the triangle is meaning (a.k.a. notion, idea,  thought). Meaning represents the mental concept or idea or notion given within some “domain of understanding” (a.k.a. area of knowledge). Meaning is always filtered through language, symbols, tools, processes, institutions, and practices. That filtering process is done within some group or collective or set of stakeholders. The context of that filtering is the domain of understanding of the stakeholders within that group. Keep in mind that meaning is not something inherent in just words or objects. Meaning is consciously or unconsciously produced through shared human systems, shaped by context, and sustained by communities of stakeholders. The triangle of meaning's intent is to make the production of meaning within a shared group as conscious as possible.
• Representation: On the left side is the machine interpretable representation (a.k.a. expression, symbol) of that meaning. The representation is the information, the medium of communications.  The representation must be complete in order to get the full exchange of meaning.  The approach to creating the representation matters and impacts completeness. The physical format of the implementation of the representation matters also (i.e. SQL, LPG using GQL, RDF/OWL/SHACL, PROLOG, XBRL, Excel). The physical technical format/syntax used to create the physical token for the representation such that a complete tangible expression that can be shared with other stakeholders in the domain of understanding effectively is necessary.
• Thing: The real world thing (a.k.a. referent, real-world object) is the actual object, event, or phenomenon in the external world that the representation refers to and corresponds to the meaning agreed to.

For example, here is the machine readable representation on Wikidata, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q46737, that represents the meaning of the notion, idea, or thought of  "Assets" or "economic resources" which corresponds to the referent or thing which might be a stack of money or your checking account in your bank.

The Seattle Method is about being conscious of misunderstanding and remedies related to minimizing misunderstandings and maximizing precise communications in digital financial statements. The Seattle Method is about minimizing or even striving to eliminate epistemic risk. Communication between humans is hard enough; when machines get involved there are potential efficiencies which can be realized but there are also additional complications that must be dealt with.

If the individual understanding of the meaning conveyed is the same for the bearer or provider of information and also for the receiver of information, then a precise communication has occurred. If the bearer of  information and the receiver of information want to communicate; they simply need to agree on the meaning, representation, and thing. Sometimes a bearer or receiver may consciously not want the communication to be effective. That is their prerogative, but not the use case I am describing. My use case includes a desire to communicate precisely and effectively. Unprecedented clarity is possible if one desires that clarity.

John Sowa's paper Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics (page 2) points out that Rich Text Format (RTF) is semantically the most impoverished representation for text ever devised. Formatting is an aspect of signs that makes them look pretty, but it fails to address the more fundamental question of what they mean.  Formatting is the costume used to decorate the meaning of information conveyed within a document. The document and the meaning should be separated; particularly if either the provider or receiver of information is a computer based process, a machine.

Not only is this separation possible, it is desirable. Separating the document and the meaning conveyed by the document enables the reliable and effective reuse of meaning.

Additional Information:

• Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics (John F. Sowa)
• Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR), see page 19)
• The Meaning of Meaning Model