[Board] [OSGeo-Standards] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Tue Oct 15 11:52:21 PDT 2019
OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese have been
developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which I think should fit
under the legal structure of an OSGeo Committee.
I have vague recollections that setting up a committee requires board
approval? I've found some old tips on running a committee here:
On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
> Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal to reflect
> your comments below.
> I would be honored to help with terminology management at OSGeo. Can’t
> speak for Reese but with his leadership in already doing terminology
> cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he seems pretty committed already :-)
> Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
> 1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
> ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for terminology
> management. The existence of this group is crucial to the success
> of the OSGeo terminology database. It will play two essential roles:
> a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of contributions
> b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for alignment of terms
> and concepts. To facilitate the flow of terminology knowledge
> to terminology authors and users.
> It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC 211 and OGC
> in this group, in order to leverage their experience in
> terminology. Such experience will be useful in situations such as
> alerting on cross-organization alignment of concepts or term duplication.
> An email list shall be setup for this group for internal communication.
> 2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.
> For the terminology management group, a terms of reference should be
> produced so that the steps for approval and data quality requirements
> are clear. This should be openly shared with contributors so they are
> clear on acceptance criteria.
> Contributors may propose changes to the terminology database at any
> time. The terminology management group shall discuss and approve or
> disapprove of the proposal within a reasonable timeframe. This
> practice is in-line with the open source, change-based,
> rapid iteration mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
> For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such as every 4-6
> months, to discuss previously decided proposals, governance
> or technical issues related to terminology management.
> The method of submitting change requests shall also be determined and
> announced so that contributors understand the necessary processes and
> 3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
> Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which means people
> need to first know they exist and what they mean. Geolexica is
> an initiative that currently serves ISO/TC 211’s terminology
> management group in making its multi-lingual geographic information
> terminology available on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We
> propose to use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in managing
> its terminology database. Geolexica not only serves human-readable
> concepts and terms, but also serves in machine-readable JSON, allowing
> APIs to directly consume the content.
> The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with streamlined
> management and operations. Terms are stored in structured data (YAML)
> files, and are directly deployable to the website. The website
> operates according to best practices, and is served as a static
> website with dynamic search functionality. Security and performance
> have always been key considerations.
> For terms that originate from other authoritative terminology
> databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a linkage shall be
> established from the OSGeo terminology database back to the source.
> 4. Use an issue tracker with source code management functionality as
> an open communication platform (e.g. GitHub).
> The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication between
> OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires every contributor to
> at least have an account, which helps minimize spam. The source code
> management functionality is used to manage terminology data in a
> machine-useable way.
> There are generally two types of contributors:
> a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
> b) those who suggest changes but can also format the desired content
> in the data format used by the terminology database.
> People can easily help out with the former in formatting the changes
> into a proper data structure change. This allows the
> terminology management group to directly approve, merge and deploy the
> proposed term modifications (and creations, deletions), all made
> effective with a single click.
> 5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
> To minimize friction in the feedback process, for every term offered
> in the OSGeo terminology pages we can offer a “propose new term” and
> “propose changes to this term" buttons. This allows user to directly
> go to the issue platform (e.g. GitHub) to make the suggested changes.
> A “contributors guide” document will greatly help these people make
> the proper suggestions and have them formatted correctly.
> 6. Initial load and data cleanup.
> The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load from the
> cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has compiled. Geolexica
> could easily handle the initial conversion from table format into the
> desired structured data format.
> The cleanup process has already been started by Reese Plews, convenor
> of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
> Ronald Tse
> Ribose Inc.
>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ron,
>> I really like your proposal. It looks very practical, should address
>> quality requirements, and should be relatively light weight to
>> manage. Some comments/suggestions:
>> * You might want to mention the approach to your first load of terms,
>> which probably should involve a bulk load from a derivative of the
>> terms that Felicity has compiled.
>> * I suggest we set up an email list to discuss terms. OSGeo can
>> provide that for us, and I can coordinate that, once we have agreed
>> on our approach.
>> * I suggest that an updating the glossary be tied to a periodic
>> event, at least annually. I think we should tie in with the OSGeoLive
>> annual build cycle for this.
>> * You haven't mentioned https://osgeo.geolexica.org/
>> <https://osgeo.geolexica.org/> in your description. I assume that
>> would be part of the solution? If so, I suggest mentioning it.
>> * Another project I'm helping start up is
>> https://thegooddocsproject.dev/ <https://thegooddocsproject.dev/>
>> (Writing templates to make good docs for open source projects). I
>> expect that the solution you are proposing would be valuable for a
>> wide variety of domains, and should be captured as best practices in
>> TheGoodDocsProject. At some point in the future, I'm hoping that you
>> might provide a generic version of your suggestions for others to
>> follow too.
>> Feel free to add your ideas below into the wiki at:
>> (Maybe add "DRAFT" at the top, until we have the process set up.)
>> * Ron and Reese, I'm hoping that you both will continue to provide
>> the leadership and stewardship of the community as it grows? Your
>> advice has been great to date.
>> Warm regards, Cameron
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Board