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

Mon Sep 30 16:58:45 PDT 2019

Hi Cameron,

Not to speak for Gobe and Scott — from my understanding, OGC operates the OGC Naming Authority which is way more powerful. Its role not only covers glossaries but also naming assignments and code lists (similar to what IANA does). It also provides semantic web output like RDF and TTL. There is a defined process on updates managed by Gobe's group.

Geolexica handles simple glossaries to serve terms and definitions under the terminology schema used in ISO (term, definition, notes, examples), without needing a server it keeps costs and maintenance minimal.

We have been discussing with Gobe on how we could add Geolexica terms inside OGC NA in an automated way, but haven’t had the time to make it happen yet. Maybe we should do that soon...

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 1, 2019, at 4:04 AM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:

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/
> [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<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Standards at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20190930/08d30a60/attachment-0001.html>