From a quick glance at the article, this looks like an interesting linguistic exploration into terminology around "type". It is questionable that such an approa

From a quick glance at the article, this looks like an interesting linguistic exploration into terminology around "type". It is questionable that such an approach is ultimately effective at getting us closer to a standard meaning, but the author is arguing well that there are sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle differences in our various uses of the word "type" and "type system". Consider how it could be seen as a bit disappointing how the author goes to all these lengths with "type" and then deals with "memory safety" by merely repeating the often repeated tags "spatial" and "temporal" which is missing phenomena like corruption through unrestricted concurrent access or other memory model aspects. It seems that coming up with a complete ontology that would capture all nuance is going to be out of the question and not how technical language works. Rather, technical definitions can be made to work within a well defined scope, which leaves enough room for everyday language to be vague. The question is then what level of generality we want to shoot for. I found Luca Cardelli's definitions in his CRC handbook of computer science and engineering article very helpful - these are "type discipline" uses of the word which the OP already finds coherent. http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/TypeSystems.pdf http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/TypeSystems.pdf