A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Should we keep on renaming a +35-year-old baby?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9681-9034
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights At least five concepts relating to freight transport chains exist nowadays. Profusion and ambiguity of concepts raise problems at different levels. An evolutionary path is traced connecting the five concepts. Need for establishing an ontology to support the (re-)definition of concepts. Four fundamental domains of specification are proposed.
Abstract Over the last +35 years at least five concepts – multimodal, intermodal, combined, co-modal and synchromodal – relating to freight transport chains have been put forward. I pinpoint the main properties of each concept and trace a plausible evolutionary path. The original concept is multimodal transport; the newest one is synchromodal transport. Every new concept borrows certain elements from the previous concepts and introduces new ones. This profusion of concepts is not in itself a hindrance. However, the concepts do exhibit substantial areas of overlap and ambiguity. This status quo facilitates misinterpretation of research efforts and hampers the coherent development of theory, regulations and policies. In this viewpoint, I argue that such an orderly situation can only be attained if there is a unified, or at least consensual, ontology. With an ontology in place, we would (re-)specify the existent concepts following the same principles. The outcome would be unambiguous meanings and clear limits. And herein lies, in my view, the main limitation we face: we still have to agree on the respective domains of specification and on the nature of each concept. I identify a total of four domains, which are: technological domain, organisational and managerial domains, production domain and externalities domain.
Should we keep on renaming a +35-year-old baby?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9681-9034
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights At least five concepts relating to freight transport chains exist nowadays. Profusion and ambiguity of concepts raise problems at different levels. An evolutionary path is traced connecting the five concepts. Need for establishing an ontology to support the (re-)definition of concepts. Four fundamental domains of specification are proposed.
Abstract Over the last +35 years at least five concepts – multimodal, intermodal, combined, co-modal and synchromodal – relating to freight transport chains have been put forward. I pinpoint the main properties of each concept and trace a plausible evolutionary path. The original concept is multimodal transport; the newest one is synchromodal transport. Every new concept borrows certain elements from the previous concepts and introduces new ones. This profusion of concepts is not in itself a hindrance. However, the concepts do exhibit substantial areas of overlap and ambiguity. This status quo facilitates misinterpretation of research efforts and hampers the coherent development of theory, regulations and policies. In this viewpoint, I argue that such an orderly situation can only be attained if there is a unified, or at least consensual, ontology. With an ontology in place, we would (re-)specify the existent concepts following the same principles. The outcome would be unambiguous meanings and clear limits. And herein lies, in my view, the main limitation we face: we still have to agree on the respective domains of specification and on the nature of each concept. I identify a total of four domains, which are: technological domain, organisational and managerial domains, production domain and externalities domain.
Should we keep on renaming a +35-year-old baby?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9681-9034
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights At least five concepts relating to freight transport chains exist nowadays. Profusion and ambiguity of concepts raise problems at different levels. An evolutionary path is traced connecting the five concepts. Need for establishing an ontology to support the (re-)definition of concepts. Four fundamental domains of specification are proposed.
Abstract Over the last +35 years at least five concepts – multimodal, intermodal, combined, co-modal and synchromodal – relating to freight transport chains have been put forward. I pinpoint the main properties of each concept and trace a plausible evolutionary path. The original concept is multimodal transport; the newest one is synchromodal transport. Every new concept borrows certain elements from the previous concepts and introduces new ones. This profusion of concepts is not in itself a hindrance. However, the concepts do exhibit substantial areas of overlap and ambiguity. This status quo facilitates misinterpretation of research efforts and hampers the coherent development of theory, regulations and policies. In this viewpoint, I argue that such an orderly situation can only be attained if there is a unified, or at least consensual, ontology. With an ontology in place, we would (re-)specify the existent concepts following the same principles. The outcome would be unambiguous meanings and clear limits. And herein lies, in my view, the main limitation we face: we still have to agree on the respective domains of specification and on the nature of each concept. I identify a total of four domains, which are: technological domain, organisational and managerial domains, production domain and externalities domain.
Should we keep on renaming a +35-year-old baby?
Reis, Vasco (author)
Journal of Transport Geography ; 46 ; 173-179
2015-06-20
7 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Should we keep on renaming a +35-year-old baby?
| Online Contents | 2015
On the renaming of the discipline 'photogrammetry'
| Online Contents | 1996
Street renaming, symbolic capital, and resistance in Durban, South Africa
| Online Contents | 2014