<html><body style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><div>hello Rob, <br></div><div><br></div><div>very nice to hear from you.<br></div><div><br></div><div>i agree with your comments on the governance and scope. the group, in my understanding, is still being considered for establishment. while i am not able to make those decisions i would recommend most definitely you and any members of your team in OGC should also be involved here.</div><div><br></div><div>when you showed me and the previous TMG convenor the work you were doing for OGC in Dec 2017 (via telecon to Wellington with Scott), the system, at that time, from my understanding, required final terminology entries for insertion. tc211 had just released the 4th version of the multi-lingual glossary of terms and i believe we had sent those to you for examination. are those terms inside of the current system. i recall there was some formatting preparation, that the previous TMG convenor, Andrew, had carried out. i hope you were able to make use of those term entries.<br></div><div><br></div><div>i have tried to follow your work but was not able to attend the meetings, therefore i am at a lose to know the full capabilities of the current system. is there any open material or presentations that you could make available, or perhaps better a telecon demo of the system could be scheduled? <br></div><div><br></div><div>i think after learning more about the system and its workings it will help the group to arrive at their governance and scope. while the group is still getting started, some of the questions i would have about your system are in regards to managing terminology entries that are under development. determining conflicts, either term to term but more specifically entries with similar definitions and finally how the system tracks the lineage, creates the linkages, and supports the feedback process. as both OGC and ISO are SDOs i am trying to understand how the terminology development process fits into the work that OSGEO is doing and what their needs and requirements are with that terminology.<br></div><div><br></div><div>while i realize you are very busy i do hope that you will be able to be a member of the OSGEO lexicon group and, while not speaking from any official capacity, i am certain that members of the lexicon group and others would all look forward to learning more about the important work you are doing at OGC.</div><div><br></div><div>reese<br></div><br><br><blockquote class="atmailquote"><br>----- Original Message -----<br><div id="origionalMessageFromField" style="width:100%;display:inline;background:rgb(228,228,228);"><div style="display:inline;font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "Rob Atkinson" <ratkinson@ogc.org></div><br><div id="origionalMessageToField" style="display:inline;font-weight:bold;">To:</div><rplews@tc211tmg.org><br><div id="origionalMessageSentField" style="display:inline;font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div>"Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter@gmail.com>, "Victoria Rautenbach" <victoria.rautenbach@gmail.com>, "Angelos Tzotsos" <gcpp.kalxas@gmail.com>, <standards@lists.osgeo.org>, "Board" <board@lists.osgeo.org><br><div style="display:inline;font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:41:10 +1100<br><div id="origionalMessageSubjectField" style="display:inline;font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....<br><br><br><div dir="ltr">I think that the governance and scope needs some more careful thought - a "standalone" glossary is not as useful as one linked into the wider world - and hoovering up stuff from the wider world raises a lot of issues about maintenance. Interoperability of the solution gives you more options for data governance.<div><div><br></div><div>Ideally the glossary needs to look at OSGeo needs and work out what content should be federated (linked), cached (harvested in a repeatable way), proxy-hosted (made available in a convenient form on behalf of another body), harvested to seed your own managed collection. (the last option seems to be the default). </div><div><br></div><div>The OGC definitions server is available to work with - either harvesting (preserving identifiers and metadata) or directly linking - we'd be keen to be able to reverse-harvest any links to OGC managed terms (NB this would be experimental work in the short term)</div><div><br></div><div>Rob</div><div><br></div><div></div></div></div><br></blockquote></body></html>