PricewaterhouseJargon

PricewaterhouseCoopers has released its latest Techology Forecast report. Generally, this is pretty well respected. But it takes a lot of interpretation. Take the following excerpt (the last sentence in particular):

From a Semantic Web perspective, the ontology would be a conceptual framework specific to HR, an overarching structure that allows computers to make more sense of the data elements belonging to the domain.
Contrast this scenario with how data rationalization occurs in the relational data world. Each time, for each point of data integration, humans must figure out the semantics for the data element and verify through timeconsuming activities that a field with a specific label— which appears to be a relevant point of integration—is actually useful, maintained, and defined to mean what the label implies. Although an ontology-based approach requires more front-end effort than a traditional data integration program, ultimately the ontological approach to data classification is more scalable, as Figure 4 shows. It’s more scalable precisely because the semantics of any data being integrated is being managed in a collaborative, standard, reusable way.

Comments

[Emmet Ryan]

Good grief. Seriously, what is the problem the world has with plain English?

Attacking jargon has become a trend of these posts as of late and of all the issues with PR I'd say this is the biggest one as it's the most aggravating/time consuming for journalists.

In short is there anyone in industry or PR who can tell me a logical reason for unintelligible language to be used in a release?

Plain English is always the smartest sounding form of the language. Try to remember that. If you doubt me just check the Economist of FT. Even people who think both publications are pretentious will acknowledge that the plain use of language aids their attempts to at least sound knowledgeable.

[Stan]

To a general reader that text is obscure at best, impenetrable at worst; even to those versed in computer science I would say it's still a jargon-ridden mess. It reads almost like a parody of gobbledegook. And I wish "ontology" had been left to philosophy.

Parsing it slowly I see hints of some kind of sense in it, but the line "humans must figure out the semantics..." is the giveaway: it was written by an A.I. program which, like all A.I., has yet to master Plain English.