[OSGeo-Standards] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 13:04:35 PDT 2019
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.
>
> 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 Sep 30, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman
>> <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
>> <mailto: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
>> term(s)?
>> * 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?
>>
>>
>> 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,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2019, at 09:42, Felicity Brand <felicitybrand at gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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:
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Felicity
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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,
>>>
>>> reese
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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 [1], 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. [2]
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
>>> <https://thegooddocsproject.dev/>
>>> > [2] 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: Reese Plews <rplews at gmail.com <mailto:rplews at gmail.com>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>> I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design,
>>> not yet):
>>> https://osgeodev.geolexica.org <https://osgeodev.geolexica.org/>
>>>
>>> The first term there is your do-ocracy:
>>> https://osgeodev.geolexica.org/concepts/10/
>>>
>>> The repo is located at:
>>> https://github.com/geolexica/osgeo.geolexica.org
>>>
>>> I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they
>>> can be improved:
>>> https://github.com/geolexica/osgeo.geolexica.org#contributing
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> _____________________________________
>>>
>>> Ronald Tse
>>> Ribose Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Standards mailing list
>>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
--
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/20191001/db0bf519/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Standards
mailing list