Response to BOK special issue discussion: ‘BOK and terminology’, by David Carmichael

IF 1.7 3区工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL

Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/10286608.2021.1980556

D. Elms

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Carmichael's discussion considers whether the discipline of Civil Engineering Systems can develop, and whether such development depends on a clear and agreed terminology. The answer to the first point is ‘yes,’ but though clear and well-agreed terminology is desirable, it is not strictly necessary because the underlying issue is the need for mutual understanding of and within the discipline rather than for agreed terminology. Restricting language could have undesirable side-effects.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对BOK特刊讨论的回应:“BOK和术语”，作者:David Carmichael

Carmichael的讨论考虑了土木工程系统学科是否可以发展，以及这种发展是否依赖于一个明确和一致的术语。对第一点的回答是“是的”，但是尽管清晰和一致的术语是可取的，但这并不是严格必要的，因为潜在的问题是需要相互理解和在学科内，而不是商定的术语。限制语言可能会产生不良的副作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 工程技术-工程：土木

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

16.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems is devoted to the advancement of systems thinking and systems techniques throughout systems engineering, environmental engineering decision-making, and engineering management. We do this by publishing the practical applications and developments of "hard" and "soft" systems techniques and thinking. Submissions that allow for better analysis of civil engineering and environmental systems might look at: -Civil Engineering optimization -Risk assessment in engineering -Civil engineering decision analysis -System identification in engineering -Civil engineering numerical simulation -Uncertainty modelling in engineering -Qualitative modelling of complex engineering systems