| Aspects | Specifying notes1 | Recommendations, details and questions1,2 |
| Abstract objects | *Occurrence of TE-specific abstract objects in TE represent an important (the question is how necessary) assumption of TE definition (cf. chapters 2, 10 and Figure 1). *Two main groups of TE-specific abstract objects exist, i.e. typical and ideal objects *Ideal objects can be further classified as conventional, statistic, knowledge-based, modified and sophisticated symbolic (extended in accordance with primary classification of | *The important question concerns contemporary accuracy of TE-specific knowledge-based objects and their possible future better formalization or re-formalization, e.g. via novel abstraction trends concerning AM (see section Abstraction) or using new scientific conventions. *The question concerns more precise specification of relationships between (i) abstract objects in TE and (ii) computer-related abstract objects (formalized object models, i.e. FOM) or design patterns. We can only propose that generation of modified abstract objects in TE can occur via similar ways like in cases of FOM. *Some abstract objects can be derived based on inspiringly interesting patterns mentioned in chapter 7. |
| Abstraction | *Abstractions occurring during assembly of TE frequently concern formation, specification and reasonable simplification of abstract objects mentioned above. *Abstraction and reasonable simplification of scene or scenario can be also sometimes useful for TE creation. Rarely, TE-related objects, scenes or scenarios undergo to “experimental” modification. | *Question arises, whether the fundamental concept of knowledge-based abstract models (AM) *Biothermodynamics, informatics, linguistics and methodological concepts related to developmental processes represent sources of knowledge and formalization important for formation of TE in biology *Scenes and abstract objects are necessary for operations in mind or auxiliary illustrations. |
| Dimensions | Each set-related dimension of TE is composed of several discrete classification terms denoting the corresponding usually disjunctive dimensional subsets or even their disjunctive subsets (i.e. subsets of the second order). | The two individual dimensions of TE correspond to purposes and variants of TE-related abstract objects (i.e. typical objects and all versions of ideal objects; cf. section Abstract objects). Additional (the third) compatible dimension then follows from structurally based schemes restricting TE subsets (STES; |
| Intelligibility | Lucid, consistent and sometimes reasonably simplified presentations are important for the possibility of friendly scientific discussion. | *Examples of concrete TE can improve intelligibility of the proposed STES. *For too complex TE, their illustrative forms, corresponding power point presentations or videos seem to be optimal for possible explanation and discussion. |
| Prehistory | If possible, it is useful to study or consider germinal principles preceding formation of ultimate antecedent or the corresponding separately investigated ancestor structure. | *Consensus-based evaluation, various comparative procedures and philosophically derived structurally-genetic approach represent suitable methods sometimes cooperating with TE in prehistory research |
| Specificity | *Due to history of TE (chapters 2 and 10), certain problems sometimes exist when distinguishing between TE and other related types o methods (for details see the corresponding part of right column). *In principle specific but widely usable (consensual) TE (cf. chapter 2) or products of their further processing (see Figure 1) are frequently successful. *Proposed STES have to substantially reciprocally differ in principle and this should be markedly reflected by their schemes. *It is a question whether each individual TE or only most of TE can be specifically described by at most unique STES. | *Overall/complex descriptions of concrete processes looking like TE are correctly denoted as AM, scientific forecast or historical if not police reconstructions. Similarly, it is necessary to distinguish matter-of-fact descriptions from TE. For valuable considerations only distantly reminding TE, the expression “clever speculation” fits. *TE-related experimental routines or sophisticated experimental designs, retrospective scientific/philosophical typification of observed events or some derivatives of inductive logic are mostly incorrectly considered as TE. Nevertheless, these approaches sometimes inspire TE formations or can be reformed to TE after successful modification. *There is a question STES limited to the specific scientific-area can exist. *If necessary parameters or markers are known, possible improvement of STES specificity could follow from (i) historical reconstruction of TE development and subsequent construction of approximate tree (cf. |
| Timing | Author’s history, presence, future regarded in TE and the intervals of virtual process times passing during TE have to be always correctly and lucidly distinguished when forming TE or restricting STES. | TE including only unique interval of virtual process time in the present constitute the subset containing simplest forms of TE (cf. Galileo’s TE mentioned in chapter 2) corresponding to the simplest variant of STES. |