The precise definition of jargon is ”special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand”. I don’t dispute that it has the connotation you mention, that people prone to use jargon often do so exactly because it is “difficult for others to understand”. I just think that reserving that term totally for that one negative class of use robs us of its positive uses, as well.

So metadata is jargon whether it is used in the way to which you object or in the way I have also seen it used, as a way for non-bogus techies to speak in a more precise, condensed fashion.

Maybe I am being pedantic and unproductively so. It seems similar to me to the various usages of hacker and just as unlikely to be resolved unambiguously. Maybe since my view seems to be in the minority, I have to live with constantly explaining myself when I use the term, jargon, non-pejoratively or just learn to let it go altogether. Doubly so because I will be the first to admit that the instances where jargon serves as well as or better than simpler though less pithy explanations are increasingly rare.

> You wrote:
>
> Metadata has a precise denotation of data about data and an
> equally precise connotation that under most circumstances such data
> is inert, it should not alter the normal function of an application one
> way or another.

You’ve helped me clarify my point with this. I agree that metadata has a precise meaning. My opinion, and complaint, is few people who use the word are using it with precision. Instead they use it to feign precision – they want to sound like they are saying more than they are. And that is my problem with jargon. In fact to me I would only say the word metadata is jargon when it is used imprecisely, or to create the pretense.

Simply asking “What do you mean by that?” goes a long way. But when people are faced with an engineer who constantly throws out acronyms or esoteric words, and uses them to intimidate, something that occurs often in tech circles, it makes asking for clarification seem like an act of weakness. Rather than, as you say, a way for a team to develop shared definitions of words that do accelerate progress.

So it goes for infrastructure, that this is the basic operational framework on which an application relies. Pithier than constantly referring to operating system, database server, web server, web server modules, code frameworks, etc. expansively when referring to a some aspect of these necessary pieces outside of actual application code.

That being said, the need for such technical precision is dependent on the presence of potential ambiguity in a discussion. I agree that even in technical conversations simpler, less precise terms will often due when there is no ambiguity, no possibility of a mistake because two techies thought different things on hearing the same, fuzzier term. In a context where such ambiguities exist, the more precise jargon ensures that everyone is on the same page.

There is a cost to using technical jargon correctly, too, that has to be considered. Techies working together have to make sure that their definitions and understandings of these terms match. There is obviously a risk if they do not, which can easily be hidden by an over reliance or too much confidence in the arbitrary precision of the terms themselves.

Sadly, while I picked this small bone of contention, I think there is a corollary even among more technical circles. In my experience, many techies don’t realize that there may be some differences in how each person in a group may define or understand technical jargon. My point, really, is just that in a group that gets this and is willing to pay the cost, the precision can speed up discussions that may be riddled with non-obvious ambiguity that may be more painful to clear up with simpler language.

You wrote:

“..I do agree with him if we narrow this to buzzy business speak. By contracts, legitimate technical jargon serves a purpose, allowing experienced specialists to communicate more quickly in order to solve problems. ”

Out of curiosity, can you offer some examples of legitimate technical jargon that you think accelerates problem solving? I agree that there it does exist, but most of what passes at technical jargon obscures more than it helps. As a recent example from my own experience, calling something a “metadata infrastructure”, when “database” will do, has more to do with ego and inflation than speed and problem solving.