[OSGeo-Standards] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 16:24:32 PDT 2019
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
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
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
After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 23:50, Gobe Hobona <ghobona at ogc.org> wrote:
> The OGC publishes definitions through the OGC Definitions Server at
> The definitions include, amongst others, terms from the OGC Glossary of
> Terms https://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/glossary
> The glossary is represented in the Definitions Server by this resource
> The RDF Turtle files used to populate the Definitions Server with the
> glossary are at
> 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 at
> Other policies are at https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/na
> The definitions are published through the OGC Definitions Server at
> 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.
> Gobe Hobona, PhD MRICS
> Director, Knowledge Management
> Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
> OGC: Making location count.
> Tel: +44 744 409 6781
> e-mail: ghobona at ogc.org
> On 30 Sep 2019, at 21:04, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> Gobe, Carl, Scott,
> I'm keen to hear the OGC weigh in on the geolexia approach being proposed.
> (Ideally before weighing in on the good questions below). In particular,
> I'd like to hear discussion about whether the OGC might adopt a similar
> approach, or set of processes, or adopt the same technology stack. I feel
> we wouldn't have done our due diligence if we were to propose advice to the
> OSGeo community without first getting endorsement from the OGC.
> I think ISO TC211, the OGC, and OSGeo are key players here, and it would
> be good to have us all singing from the same songbook.
> I'm also listening for lessons that we can take from the geospatial domain
> into general documentation guidance for all open source (and other)
> domains, through TheGoodDocsProject I'm helping set up.
> Cheers, Cameron
> On 30/9/19 9:23 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
> Hi Felicity, Bruce,
> Thanks for the great questions! As a noob to OSGeo, replies inline…
> • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for
> the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example,
> entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
> If it is decided that the Google Sheet will serve as the authoritative
> data store for the glossary, we have the ability to pull from that to
> generate the site.
> • Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?
> It should be?
> • What terms do we want included?
> Probably all technical terms across OSGeo projects, I imagine that
> OSGeoLive documentation would provide a host of them?
> • How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?
> Maybe there should be some terminology group / list setup to vet these
> terms and their sources?
> • How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
> • Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an
> existing ‘authoritative’ term?
> These actions relating to term lifecycle ought to be done by people (and
> probably consensus), especially since stability is arguably important. Some
> process should be required. Maybe a terms of reference for this terminology
> management list/group will be needed.
> Ronald Tse
> Ribose Inc.
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
> information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to
> receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
> disclose or take any action based on this message or any
> information herein. If you have received this message in
> error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
> and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
> On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman <
> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone.
> If we are to set up a taxonomy, I suggest that we also think about a
> process behind the inclusion of ‘authoritative’ terms.
> This will become important for the future use and re-use of this taxonomy.
> Some items to think about:
> - Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?
> - What terms do we want included?
> - How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the
> - How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the
> - Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an
> existing ‘authoritative’ term?
> Thjis will become important as people come to rely on an OSGeo taxonomy.
> Also, I fully endorse Ron’s comments about not reinventing the wheel and
> re-using existing taxonomies where possible.
> Kind regards,
> On 30 Sep 2019, at 09:42, Felicity Brand <felicitybrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had
> sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there:
> As I understand it:
> - Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns
> for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For
> example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
> - We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous -
> that aren't quite OSGeo specific.
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
>> As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can
>> play around with.
>> Feedback welcomed ...
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <rplews at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
>>> we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
>>> or not at this time.
>>> the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
>>> the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
>>> same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
>>> from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
>>> can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
>>> there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
>>> your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
>>> form, putting them into excel is an easy way.
>>> i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
>>> before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
>>> make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
>>> that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.
>>> will be in touch,
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Wow!!!
>>> > I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
>>> > Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
>>> > Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
>>> > OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>>> > Questions will cover:
>>> > 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
>>> > terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>>> > 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject , where
>>> > a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
>>> > writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
>>> > you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
>>> > template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. 
>>> >  https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
>>> >  https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>>> > On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>> > > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
>>> > > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
>>> > >
>>> > > Ron
>> From: Ronald Tse <tse at ribose.com>
>> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
>> Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
>> To: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Reese Plews <rplews at gmail.com>
>> Hi Cameron,
>> I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):
>> The first term there is your do-ocracy:
>> The repo is located at:
>> I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be
>> The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's)
>> GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially
>> for the addition of terms.
>> Hope this helps!
>> Ronald Tse
>> Ribose Inc.
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> Standards mailing listStandards at lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
> *Location Powers: Data Science*
> <http://www.locationpowers.net/events/1911california/> - 90% early bird
> discount until October 15.
> Be part of a discussion on how the core methods of data science can
> provide valuable insights when used with geospatial information.
> 13th & 14th November, 2019 | Google Crittenden Campus, Mountain View, CA |
> #LP_DS <https://twitter.com/hashtag/LP_DS>
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards