Finding and sharing a common vocabulary is a critical task for the development of any area of knowledge. However, it is very common to find heated debate in the literature on the meaning of particular terms. Different authors propose different definitions, some of them even contradictory. This situation, while enriching the scientific process, may hinder the understanding of fundamental concepts regarding a certain subject. To address this problem, we propose a technique called References-enriched Concept Maps (RCM), inspired by concept maps. RCM can be used to compare definitions and therefore improve the understanding of terms, keeping track of the publications in which the different definitions were proposed. We present a method of RCM construction as well as different metrics for analysing them. An analysis carried out using the proposed metrics allows one to find answers while also raising new questions about the discussed concepts.
MullerP-AFondementFBaudryB. Modeling modeling. In: SchürrASelicB (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems. Berlin: Springer, 2009. pp. 2–16.
2.
Rodriguez-PriegoEGarcía-IzquierdoFRubioÁ. Modeling issues: A survival guide for a non-expert modeler. In: PetriuDRouquetteNHaugenØ (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems. Berlin: Springer, 2010, pp. 361–375.
3.
NovakJDCañasAJ. The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization2006; 5(3): 175–184.
GrangerH. Aristotle on genus and differentia. Journal of the History of Philosophy1984; 22(1): 1–23.
8.
NovakJDGowinDB. Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
9.
CañasACarffRHillGCarvalhoMArguedasMEskridgeT. Concept Maps: Integrating knowledge and information visualization. In: TerganS-OKellerT (eds) Knowledge and information visualization. Berlin: Springer, 2005. p. 181–4.
10.
MarchandCD’IvernoisJAssalJSlamaGHivonR. An analysis, using concept mapping, of diabetic patients’ knowledge, before and after patient education. Medical Teacher2002; 24(1): 90–99.
11.
KanSH. Metrics and models in software quality engineering, 2nd edn.Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2002.
12.
TalbiTMeyerBStapfE. A metric framework for object-oriented development. In: Proceedings of the 39th international conference and exhibition on technology of object-oriented languages and systems (TOOLS39). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 2001, pp. 164–172.
13.
JoyceGH. Principles of logic. London: Longmans, Green, 1916.
14.
HurleyPJ. A concise introduction to logic. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2011.
15.
KlirGJ. Facets of systems science. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2001.
AusubelDP. The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1963.
28.
CañasAJCarvalhoM. Concept Maps and AI: An Unlikely Marriage? In: Proceedings of SBIE 2004: Simpósio Brasileiro de informática educativa, Manaus, Brazil, 2004.
HayesPEskridgeTCSaavedraRReichherzerTMehrotraMBobrovnikoffD. Collaborative knowledge capture in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge capture. New York: ACM, 2005, pp. 99–106.
31.
EpplerMJ. A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization2006; 5(3): 202–210.
32.
AAhlbergM. Varieties of concept mapping. In: CañasAJNovakJDGonzálezFM (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping, Pamplona, 2004, pp. 14–17.
33.
SchwartzRMRaphaelTE. Concept of definition: A key to improving students’ vocabulary. The Reading Teacher1985; 39(2).
