The ratio between professionalism and length of definitions

One thing that hit me earlier today, the more you get professional the longer the definitions of the words you don't understand become.
Here's a definition of "archetype" (of course in the CS terminology) just to give you an idea;

Archetype: reusable, formal expression of a distinct, domain level concept such as blood pressure, physical examination, or laborotory results, expressed in the form of constraints on data whose instances conform to some reference model [Beale and Heard].

Here's a longer one of "ontology" :) from wikipedia;

Ontology: In information sciences and engineering, an ontology (instead of Ontology) is claimed to be ‘an explicit specification of conceptualization’, ‘a theory of content’, ‘a theory (a system) of concepts/vocabulary used as building blocks of information processing systems’, ‘a set of agreements about a set of concepts’, or ‘the representation of the semantics of terms and their relationships’. Also, it is interpreted as ‘the class hierarchy in object-oriented paradigm’, ‘a complete schema of the domain concepts’, ‘an entity-relationship schema with subsumption relations between concepts’. Sometimes, one can meet such definitions as ‘conceptual patterns’, ‘concept heterarchies or hierarchies’, ‘a body of conceptualizations’, ‘schemata’, or ‘metadata scheme’, ‘a common set of terms’, ‘a controlled vocabulary of terms’, ‘a representation vocabulary’, or ‘a body of knowledge’.

I really should be reading papers faster. The problem is I don't know many of the concepts described in a paper.
I think I need time...

[When I started blogging, I was pretty determined that I wouldn't be posting CS stuff, but here it is. So that should be another proof that i am a nerd]