Would you consider these groups as semantic groups or semantic fields or as something else that is specific only for terminological systems?

 The expression 'semаntic group' is not a scientific term. It is used rather loosely to denote any group of units that have some common semantic feаture, e.g. "the verbs of motion can be divided into the following sem. groups: motion in general, motion in the air, motion in water etc.' or "the words of this poem may be divided into 3 semantic grooups: Nature, Social World, Religion".  

The notion "semantic field" is a term and it is generally defined as a group of words and idiomatic expressions that are related to a certain conceptual or empirical domain. A semantic field is treated as a fuzzy set with no strict borders. The nucleus of a sem field contains words that are connected by systemic semantic relations such as synonymy, antinymy, part-whole, agent--action, instrument --action, action - its causation etc. So you can well  call your groups semantic groups or fields. "Field" is preferable if you unite on semantic basis words of different parts of speech.  

The result of all of these  investigations is a deeper understanding and appreciation of the complexity and expressive elegance of particular languages and the uniquely human system of linguistic communication. The goal of linguistic research into meaning is to illuminate the processes . It also improves materials which help those acquiring a second language

Would you consider these groups as semantic groups or semantic fields or as something else that is specific only for terminological systems?

 The expression 'semаntic group' is not a scientific term. It is used rather loosely to denote any group of units that have some common semantic feаture, e.g. "the verbs of motion can be divided into the following sem. groups: motion in general, motion in the air, motion in water etc.' or "the words of this poem may be divided into 3 semantic grooups: Nature, Social World, Religion".  

The notion "semantic field" is a term and it is generally defined as a group of words and idiomatic expressions that are related to a certain conceptual or empirical domain. A semantic field is treated as a fuzzy set with no strict borders. The nucleus of a sem field contains words that are connected by systemic semantic relations such as synonymy, antinymy, part-whole, agent--action, instrument --action, action - its causation etc. So you can well  call your groups semantic groups or fields. "Field" is preferable if you unite on semantic basis words of different parts of speech.  

Dear Denis,

I think you should better specify what you mean by terminology systems; otherwise, the findings of Kobozeva are absolutely valid.

 Irina Mikhailovna, thank you for your observations and suggestions. I appreciate your reply!

Dear Dante Salatino, thank you for your reply!

by terminological systems I mean sets of terms used for describing one particular theory (Sassure's theory in this case). 

Then, as a linguistic theory, is not knowledge that enables knowledge. One theory is not a 'destination', but the possibility of a way out. One theory is not a solution, but the possibility of dealing with a problem.

A semantic field can be established whenever we can define a framework in which are contained all the "laws" that allow representation of reality in a conceptual framework for interpreting this reality.

The analysis of terminological systems can best be done through considering the Sense Relations paradigm in Formal Semantics; this system is premised on the recognition that terms or vocables have a conventional meaning attached to them, and that this denotative meaning is 'cognitive' in the sense that it matches with the conceptual frame of a speaker's intelligence. Sense relations in a broad sense would capture 'inclusion' and 'exclusion' of meaning, either in part, in whole, or in other logically understood order. The Saussurean concepts may not be appropriate in the analysis of terms; though they directly consider terms within the linguistic and referential systems, they do not have an analytical model.