[OSGeo-Standards] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 00:34:31 PDT 2019

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/ 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/ (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

On 10/10/19 2:40 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
> OGC and ISO have established structures and their processes may not 
> perfectly fit the overtly-open model used by OSGeo.
> As an open-source developer, my ideal workflow with OSGeo terminology 
> management would follow an open proposal and feedback model, suited 
> for an issue tracker like GitHub offers.
> The vision is to allow crowd-sourcing of terms while tracking those 
> from ISO, OGC or whatever authoritative source to prevent duplication.
> This is what I’d propose:
> 1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
> Other than ISO, OGC, the Electropedia also has one, and it is 
> especially important since quality checks will be crucial to the 
> success of the OSGeo terminology database. It could be as simple as 
> having two members “approve” new terms or updates; similar to how 
> OpenSSL accepts contributions.
> 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 can also be openly shared with contributors so they 
> know what to do.
> In the terminology management group, it would be very helpful to 
> involve representation from ISO/TC 211 and OGC members so they can 
> tell you whether any newly proposed terms are problematic (e.g. 
> duplication).
> 2. Use an issue tracker like GitHub (or similar) as an open 
> communication platform.
> This is used to perform two-way communication between OSGeo members 
> and the contributors. This requires every contributor to at least have 
> an account, this helps minimize spam. There will be two types of 
> contributors, those that purely suggest changes, and 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. This allows whoever of the management group that approves the 
> term to directly “merge” in the changes to the database with a click.
> 3. Offer buttons to kickstart the feedback process.
> 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.
> 4. The linkage between the OSGeo terminology database back to ISO and 
> OGC can be established for any terms that originated from those parties.
> Does this help?
> Kind regards,
> Ron
> _____________________________________
> 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 Oct 2, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Cameron Shorter 
>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 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?
>> Cameron
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20191010/d1d1aef7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list