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

[rplews at tc211tmg.org]

hello Rob, 

very nice to hear from you.

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.

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.

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? 

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.

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.

reese

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Atkinson" <ratkinson at ogc.org>
To:<rplews at tc211tmg.org>
Cc:"Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>, "Victoria
Rautenbach" <victoria.rautenbach at gmail.com>, "Angelos Tzotsos"
<gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com>, <standards at lists.osgeo.org>, "Board"
<board at lists.osgeo.org>
Sent:Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:41:10 +1100
Subject:Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
osgeo-standards ....

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.

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).  

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)

Rob


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20191024/e85634c4/attachment.html>