[OSGeo-Standards] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sun Oct 6 12:53:30 PDT 2019
Yes, I think it would be valuable to add "OSGeo engagement" to the
agenda, and have Ron, Reese or me talk to it.
In the interim, I propose that we collectively start fleshing out a
proposed process for OSGeo glossary development, at this page:
(Reach out to me if you have problems getting wiki access to this page)
On 6/10/19 8:41 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
> Yes, there are a number of updates to the OGC Glossary of Terms that are needed. We envisage updating the glossary in the coming year through a series of dedicated OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA) meetings.
> The OGC Definitions Server is designed to cope with different vocabularies or terminology systems.
> The URI of each term identifies the Authority (organisation) that originated the term.
> The system integrates easiest with terminologies that are published in RDF encodings i.e. Turtle, JSON-LD or RDF/XML. Preferably the 3rd party terminologies should use the SKOS vocabulary for describing the relationship between terms.
> The OGC-NA will hold a meeting on November 21st, 8:00 AM - 8:50 AM Toulouse local time. If you are interested I can add you to the agenda for a 10-minute remote presentation on OSGeo’s plans. Shall I add you to the agenda?
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 05:00, Cameron Shorter<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> <resending as my last email was too big for the list>
>> Hi Gobe,
>> I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external people can engage with this process.
>> However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.
>> On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211 and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.
>> So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and complementary processes).
>> Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a similar transport format "XML".
>> I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better with OGC's help.
>> After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video conference call.
>> Sound good?
>> On 2/10/19 11:50 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:
>>> The OGC publishes definitions through the OGC Definitions Server athttp://www.opengis.net/def
>>> The definitions include, amongst others, terms from the OGC Glossary of Termshttps://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/glossary
>>> The glossary is represented in the Definitions Server by this resourcehttp://www.opengis.net/def/glossary/
>>> The RDF Turtle files used to populate the Definitions Server with the glossary are athttps://github.com/opengeospatial/NamingAuthority/blob/master/definitions/conceptschemes/ogc_glossary.ttl
>>> Once published, the definitions are available in RDF/XML, RDF Turtle, JSON-LD and a series of other formats. Some specific definitions, such as those for Coordinate Reference Systems are available in GML.
>>> Any OGC member or Alliance Partner can submit a proposal for terms or names of resources to be registered. OSGeo is an alliance partner so can also submit a proposal. Upon receipt of the proposal, the proposal is discussed and voted on by the OGC-NA. The OGC-NA relies on subject matter experts from the Domain Working Groups and Standards Working Groups for guidance on whether to approve a proposal.
>>> The Definitions Server has been developed to support implementors of OGC standards and also the work of the OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA), a subcommittee of the OGC Technical Committee. It’s procedures are athttps://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=37800
>>> Other policies are athttps://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/na
>>> The definitions are published through the OGC Definitions Server athttp://www.opengis.net/def
>>> Below the Definitions Server is infrastructure to support redirection and proxying to other registers (e.g. Sensor Model Registers, Coordinate Reference System registers, UoM registers etc).
>>> OGC is not currently looking to replace the Definitions Server, nor the infrastructure on which it is built.
>>> Some key lessons that we can share are that:
>>> * The governance, policies and procedures (many of which are described in ISO 19135-1:2015) are very important.
>>> * The role of subject matter experts is also very important.
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards