Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

rplews
hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry about this time.
reese

----- Original Message -----
From:
"Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>

To:
"Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
"Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
Subject:
Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....


Hi all,

Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to discuss this issue?
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28

Regards,
Angelos

On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,

I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo Committee.

I have vague recollections that setting up a committee requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines

Comments welcomed.

On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
Hi Cameron,

Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal to reflect your comments below.

I would be honored to help with terminology management at OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he seems pretty committed already :-)

Ron

———

Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management

1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.

ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for terminology management. The existence of this group is crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database. It will play two essential roles:

a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of contributions
b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.

It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC 211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful in situations such as alerting on cross-organization alignment of concepts or term duplication.

An email list shall be setup for this group for internal communication.


2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.

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 should be openly shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance criteria.

Contributors may propose changes to the terminology database at any time. The terminology management group shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration mantra, similar to OpenSSL.

For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided proposals, governance or technical issues related to terminology management.

The method of submitting change requests shall also be determined and announced so that contributors understand the necessary processes and timeline.


3. Establish an online terminology database presence.

Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which means people need to first know they exist and what they mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its multi-lingual geographic information terminology available on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly consume the content.

The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable to the website. The website operates according to best practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic search functionality. Security and performance have always been key considerations.

For terms that originate from other authoritative terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology database back to the source.


4. Use an issue tracker with source code management functionality as an open communication platform (e.g. GitHub).

The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires every contributor to at least have an account, which helps minimize spam. The source code management functionality is used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.

There are generally two types of contributors:

a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
b) 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 in formatting the changes into a proper data structure change. This allows the terminology management group to directly approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a single click.


5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.

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.


6. Initial load and data cleanup.

The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial conversion from table format into the desired structured data format.

The cleanup process has already been started by Reese Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.


_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter [hidden email] wrote:

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/ <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/ <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: https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms

(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



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards


_______________________________________________


Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board


-- 


Angelos Tzotsos, PhD


Charter Member


Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter

Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are in this Asian/Australia timezone.

Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/

On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry about this time.
reese

----- Original Message -----
From:
"Angelos Tzotsos" [hidden email]

To:
"Cameron Shorter" [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email] [hidden email], "OSGeo Discussions" [hidden email]
Cc:
"Reese Plews" [hidden email]
Sent:
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
Subject:
Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....


Hi all,

Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to discuss this issue?
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28

Regards,
Angelos

On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,

I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo Committee.

I have vague recollections that setting up a committee requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines

Comments welcomed.

On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
Hi Cameron,

Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal to reflect your comments below.

I would be honored to help with terminology management at OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he seems pretty committed already :-)

Ron

———

Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management

1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.

ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for terminology management. The existence of this group is crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database. It will play two essential roles:

a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of contributions
b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.

It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC 211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful in situations such as alerting on cross-organization alignment of concepts or term duplication.

An email list shall be setup for this group for internal communication.


2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.

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 should be openly shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance criteria.

Contributors may propose changes to the terminology database at any time. The terminology management group shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration mantra, similar to OpenSSL.

For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided proposals, governance or technical issues related to terminology management.

The method of submitting change requests shall also be determined and announced so that contributors understand the necessary processes and timeline.


3. Establish an online terminology database presence.

Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which means people need to first know they exist and what they mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its multi-lingual geographic information terminology available on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly consume the content.

The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable to the website. The website operates according to best practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic search functionality. Security and performance have always been key considerations.

For terms that originate from other authoritative terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology database back to the source.


4. Use an issue tracker with source code management functionality as an open communication platform (e.g. GitHub).

The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires every contributor to at least have an account, which helps minimize spam. The source code management functionality is used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.

There are generally two types of contributors:

a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
b) 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 in formatting the changes into a proper data structure change. This allows the terminology management group to directly approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a single click.


5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.

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.


6. Initial load and data cleanup.

The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial conversion from table format into the desired structured data format.

The cleanup process has already been started by Reese Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.


_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter [hidden email] wrote:

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/ <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/ <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: https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms

(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



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards


_______________________________________________



Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board


-- 



Angelos Tzotsos, PhD



Charter Member



Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Angelos Tzotsos
Hi,

In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC

On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are in
> this Asian/Australia timezone.
>
> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite
> easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with the
> web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>
> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local
>> time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype
>> or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry about this
>> time.
>> reese
>>
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     From:
>>     "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>
>>     To:
>>     "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>>     <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>>     <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions"
>> <[hidden email]>
>>     Cc:
>>     "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>>     Sent:
>>     Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>>     Subject:
>>     Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>>     osgeo-standards ....
>>
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>>     discuss this issue?
>>     https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Angelos
>>
>>     On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>>         OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>
>>         I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>>         have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>>         I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>>         Committee.
>>
>>         I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>>         requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>>         committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>
>>         Comments welcomed.
>>
>>         On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>
>>             Hi Cameron,
>>
>>             Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>>             to reflect your comments below.
>>
>>             I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>>             OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>>             already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>>             seems pretty committed already :-)
>>
>>             Ron
>>
>>             ———
>>
>>             Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>
>>             1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>
>>             ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>>             terminology management. The existence of this group is
>>             crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>>             It will play two essential roles:
>>
>>             a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>>             contributions
>>             b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>>             alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>>             terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>
>>             It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>>             211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>>             experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>>             in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>>             alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>
>>             An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>>             communication.
>>
>>
>>             2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology
>> management.
>>
>>             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 should be openly
>>             shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>>             criteria.
>>
>>             Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>>             database at any time. The terminology management group
>>             shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>>             within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>>             with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>>             mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>
>>             For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>>             as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>>             proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>>             terminology management.
>>
>>             The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>>             determined and announced so that contributors understand
>>             the necessary processes and timeline.
>>
>>
>>             3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>
>>             Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>>             means people need to first know they exist and what they
>>             mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>>             ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>>             multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>>             on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>>             use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>>             managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>>             serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>>             in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>>             consume the content.
>>
>>             The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>>             streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>>             structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>>             to the website. The website operates according to best
>>             practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>>             search functionality. Security and performance have always
>>             been key considerations.
>>
>>             For terms that originate from other authoritative
>>             terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>>             linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>>             database back to the source.
>>
>>
>>             4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>>             functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>>             GitHub).
>>
>>             The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>>             between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>>             every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>>             minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>>             used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>
>>             There are generally two types of contributors:
>>
>>             a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>>             b) 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 in formatting
>>             the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>>             allows the terminology management group to directly
>>             approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>>             (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>>             single click.
>>
>>
>>             5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>
>>             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.
>>
>>
>>             6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>
>>             The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>>             from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>>             compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>>             conversion from table format into the desired structured
>>             data format.
>>
>>             The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>>             Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>
>>
>>             _____________________________________
>>
>>             Ronald Tse
>>             Ribose Inc.
>>
>>                 On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>                 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>                 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/
>>                 <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/
>>                 <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:
>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>
>>                 (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
>>
>>
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             Standards mailing list
>>             [hidden email]
>>             https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>         Board mailing list
>>         [hidden email]
>>         https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>
>>
>>     Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>
>>
>>
>>     Charter Member
>>
>>
>>
>>     Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>     http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>


--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter

OSGeo Board,

On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them before hand in this email thread.

We have started a wiki page for the committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee

Thanks in advance, Cameron

On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese (Tokyo).

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734

Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an interest and an opinion.

On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
Hi,

In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC

On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are in this Asian/Australia timezone.

Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/

On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry about this time.
reese


    ----- Original Message -----
    From:
    "Angelos Tzotsos" [hidden email]

    To:
    "Cameron Shorter" [hidden email],
    [hidden email], [hidden email]
    [hidden email], "OSGeo Discussions" [hidden email]
    Cc:
    "Reese Plews" [hidden email]
    Sent:
    Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
    Subject:
    Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
    osgeo-standards ....


    Hi all,

    Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
    discuss this issue?
    https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28

    Regards,
    Angelos

    On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

        OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,

        I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
        have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
        I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
        Committee.

        I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
        requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
        committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines

        Comments welcomed.

        On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:

            Hi Cameron,

            Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
            to reflect your comments below.

            I would be honored to help with terminology management at
            OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
            already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
            seems pretty committed already :-)

            Ron

            ———

            Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management

            1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.

            ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
            terminology management. The existence of this group is
            crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
            It will play two essential roles:

            a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
            contributions
            b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
            alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
            terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.

            It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
            211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
            experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
            in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
            alignment of concepts or term duplication.

            An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
            communication.


            2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.

            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 should be openly
            shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
            criteria.

            Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
            database at any time. The terminology management group
            shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
            within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
            with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
            mantra, similar to OpenSSL.

            For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
            as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
            proposals, governance or technical issues related to
            terminology management.

            The method of submitting change requests shall also be
            determined and announced so that contributors understand
            the necessary processes and timeline.


            3. Establish an online terminology database presence.

            Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
            means people need to first know they exist and what they
            mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
            ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
            multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
            on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
            use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
            managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
            serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
            in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
            consume the content.

            The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
            streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
            structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
            to the website. The website operates according to best
            practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
            search functionality. Security and performance have always
            been key considerations.

            For terms that originate from other authoritative
            terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
            linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
            database back to the source.


            4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
            functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
            GitHub).

            The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
            between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
            every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
            minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
            used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.

            There are generally two types of contributors:

            a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
            b) 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 in formatting
            the changes into a proper data structure change. This
            allows the terminology management group to directly
            approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
            (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
            single click.


            5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.

            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.


            6. Initial load and data cleanup.

            The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
            from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
            compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
            conversion from table format into the desired structured
            data format.

            The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
            Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.


            _____________________________________

            Ronald Tse
            Ribose Inc.

                On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
                [hidden email] wrote:

                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/
                <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/
                <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:
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms

                (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



            _______________________________________________
            Standards mailing list
            [hidden email]
            https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards



        _______________________________________________



        Board mailing list
        [hidden email]
        https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board



    --


    Angelos Tzotsos, PhD



    Charter Member



    Open Source Geospatial Foundation
    http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos



-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Angelos Tzotsos
Hi Cameron,

Have you decided on a committee chair?
Who will be the point of contact for the board?

Cheers,
Angelos

On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
OSGeo Board,

On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them before hand in this email thread.

We have started a wiki page for the committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee

Thanks in advance, Cameron

On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese (Tokyo).

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734 <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734>

Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an interest and an opinion.

On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
Hi,

In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC

On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are in this Asian/Australia timezone.

Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/

On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry about this time.
reese


    ----- Original Message -----
    From:
    "Angelos Tzotsos" [hidden email]

    To:
    "Cameron Shorter" [hidden email],
[hidden email], [hidden email]
[hidden email], "OSGeo Discussions" [hidden email]
    Cc:
    "Reese Plews" [hidden email]
    Sent:
    Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
    Subject:
    Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
    osgeo-standards ....


    Hi all,

    Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
    discuss this issue?
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28

    Regards,
    Angelos

    On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

        OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,

        I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
        have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
        I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
        Committee.

        I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
        requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
        committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines

        Comments welcomed.

        On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:

            Hi Cameron,

            Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
            to reflect your comments below.

            I would be honored to help with terminology management at
            OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
            already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
            seems pretty committed already :-)

            Ron

            ———

            Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management

            1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.

            ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
            terminology management. The existence of this group is
            crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
            It will play two essential roles:

            a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
            contributions
            b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
            alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
            terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.

            It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
            211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
            experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
            in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
            alignment of concepts or term duplication.

            An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
            communication.


            2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.

            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 should be openly
            shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
            criteria.

            Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
            database at any time. The terminology management group
            shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
            within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
            with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
            mantra, similar to OpenSSL.

            For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
            as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
            proposals, governance or technical issues related to
            terminology management.

            The method of submitting change requests shall also be
            determined and announced so that contributors understand
            the necessary processes and timeline.


            3. Establish an online terminology database presence.

            Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
            means people need to first know they exist and what they
            mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
            ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
            multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
            on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
            use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
            managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
            serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
            in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
            consume the content.

            The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
            streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
            structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
            to the website. The website operates according to best
            practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
            search functionality. Security and performance have always
            been key considerations.

            For terms that originate from other authoritative
            terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
            linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
            database back to the source.


            4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
            functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
            GitHub).

            The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
            between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
            every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
            minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
            used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.

            There are generally two types of contributors:

            a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
            b) 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 in formatting
            the changes into a proper data structure change. This
            allows the terminology management group to directly
            approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
            (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
            single click.


            5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.

            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.


            6. Initial load and data cleanup.

            The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
            from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
            compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
            conversion from table format into the desired structured
            data format.

            The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
            Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.


            _____________________________________

            Ronald Tse
            Ribose Inc.

                On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
[hidden email] wrote:

                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/
<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/
<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:
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms

                (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



            _______________________________________________
            Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards



        _______________________________________________



        Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board



    --


    Angelos Tzotsos, PhD



    Charter Member



    Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos



-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254


_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Angelos Tzotsos
Angelos,

We haven't discussed selecting a chair of the committee yet, but I will
be suggesting Reese and/or Ron as we bootstrap this committee. They both
have been been very active in setting up this initiative and come with
lots of experience.

On 22/10/19 10:47 pm, Victoria Rautenbach wrote:

> Dear All
>
> This is a great initiative, thank you Cameron and Reese. I fully
> support this initiative and working with the ISO/TC 211 TMG on their
> mature terminology database.
>
> Reese, will be great to work with you again!
>
> Regards
> Victoria
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Have you decided on a committee chair?
>> Who will be the point of contact for the board?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Angelos
>>
>> On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> OSGeo Board,
>>
>> On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them before hand in this email thread.
>>
>> We have started a wiki page for the committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Cameron
>>
>> On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>>
>> Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese (Tokyo).
>>
>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734 <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734>
>>
>> Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an interest and an opinion.
>>
>> On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
>> I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC
>>
>> On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are in this Asian/Australia timezone.
>>
>> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>>
>> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry about this time.
>> reese
>>
>>
>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>      From:
>>      "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>
>>      To:
>>      "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>> <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>> <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
>>      Cc:
>>      "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>>      Sent:
>>      Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>>      Subject:
>>      Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>>      osgeo-standards ....
>>
>>
>>      Hi all,
>>
>>      Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>>      discuss this issue?
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>
>>      Regards,
>>      Angelos
>>
>>      On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>>          OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>
>>          I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>>          have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>>          I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>>          Committee.
>>
>>          I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>>          requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>>          committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>
>>          Comments welcomed.
>>
>>          On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>
>>              Hi Cameron,
>>
>>              Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>>              to reflect your comments below.
>>
>>              I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>>              OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>>              already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>>              seems pretty committed already :-)
>>
>>              Ron
>>
>>              ———
>>
>>              Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>
>>              1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>
>>              ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>>              terminology management. The existence of this group is
>>              crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>>              It will play two essential roles:
>>
>>              a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>>              contributions
>>              b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>>              alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>>              terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>
>>              It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>>              211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>>              experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>>              in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>>              alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>
>>              An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>>              communication.
>>
>>
>>              2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.
>>
>>              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 should be openly
>>              shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>>              criteria.
>>
>>              Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>>              database at any time. The terminology management group
>>              shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>>              within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>>              with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>>              mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>
>>              For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>>              as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>>              proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>>              terminology management.
>>
>>              The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>>              determined and announced so that contributors understand
>>              the necessary processes and timeline.
>>
>>
>>              3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>
>>              Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>>              means people need to first know they exist and what they
>>              mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>>              ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>>              multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>>              on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>>              use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>>              managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>>              serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>>              in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>>              consume the content.
>>
>>              The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>>              streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>>              structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>>              to the website. The website operates according to best
>>              practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>>              search functionality. Security and performance have always
>>              been key considerations.
>>
>>              For terms that originate from other authoritative
>>              terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>>              linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>>              database back to the source.
>>
>>
>>              4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>>              functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>>              GitHub).
>>
>>              The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>>              between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>>              every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>>              minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>>              used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>
>>              There are generally two types of contributors:
>>
>>              a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>>              b) 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 in formatting
>>              the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>>              allows the terminology management group to directly
>>              approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>>              (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>>              single click.
>>
>>
>>              5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>
>>              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.
>>
>>
>>              6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>
>>              The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>>              from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>>              compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>>              conversion from table format into the desired structured
>>              data format.
>>
>>              The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>>              Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>
>>
>>              _____________________________________
>>
>>              Ronald Tse
>>              Ribose Inc.
>>
>>                  On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>                  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/
>> <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/
>> <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:
>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>
>>                  (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
>>
>>
>>
>>              _______________________________________________
>>              Standards mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>>
>>
>>          _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>          Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>      --
>>
>>
>>      Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>
>>
>>
>>      Charter Member
>>
>>
>>
>>      Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Technology Demystifier
>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>
>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>> Charter Member
>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

rplews
hello Cameron,

thank you for your support but i would like to yield my suggested nomination as a chair of this new committee to someone, in my opinion, who is more involved with the workings of OSGEO. i do however plan to remain active and involved with the workings and discussions of the group, hopefully in some type of registered capacity. i am sure there are a number of OSGEO members who may be interested in such a position. 

i am not certain if OSGEO has an official working language or not. i dont know enough about the demographics of the OSGEO members. i hesitate to suggest any language requirements for members of  the group, however i am assuming that  the official fundamental terminology entries will be developed and/or harmonized, and maintained in english.  "approved" terminology entries may then be translated by experts of their respective languages, similar to how our group in TC211 works.  the unique requirements of the group enable many opportunities for participation.  

it is difficult to decided without more consultation if this is how the group will function but from what you initially were proposing, it seems this is a common structure and procedural framework of such a group.

there could also be some level of a consensus and feedback, however that  process "flow" depends upon the operating structure of OSGEO, therefore, in my opinion, the chair of the committee should be someone from OSGEO.

i am happy to discuss off list or via telecon at your convenience.

reese

----- Original Message -----
From:
"Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>

To:
"Victoria Rautenbach" <[hidden email]>, "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
<[hidden email]>, "Board" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:16:14 +1100
Subject:
Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....


Angelos,

We haven't discussed selecting a chair of the committee yet, but I will
be suggesting Reese and/or Ron as we bootstrap this committee. They both
have been been very active in setting up this initiative and come with
lots of experience.

On 22/10/19 10:47 pm, Victoria Rautenbach wrote:
> Dear All
>
> This is a great initiative, thank you Cameron and Reese. I fully
> support this initiative and working with the ISO/TC 211 TMG on their
> mature terminology database.
>
> Reese, will be great to work with you again!
>
> Regards
> Victoria
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Have you decided on a committee chair?
>> Who will be the point of contact for the board?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Angelos
>>
>> On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> OSGeo Board,
>>
>> On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them before hand in this email thread.
>>
>> We have started a wiki page for the committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Cameron
>>
>> On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>>
>> Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese (Tokyo).
>>
>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734 <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734>
>>
>> Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an interest and an opinion.
>>
>> On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
>> I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC
>>
>> On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are in this Asian/Australia timezone.
>>
>> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>>
>> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know. sorry about this time.
>> reese
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>> "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>
>> To:
>> "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>> <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>> <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
>> Cc:
>> "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>> Sent:
>> Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>> Subject:
>> Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>> osgeo-standards ....
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>> discuss this issue?
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>
>> Regards,
>> Angelos
>>
>> On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>
>> I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>> have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>> I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>> Committee.
>>
>> I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>> requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>> committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>
>> Comments welcomed.
>>
>> On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>> to reflect your comments below.
>>
>> I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>> OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>> already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>> seems pretty committed already :-)
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> ———
>>
>> Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>
>> 1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>
>> ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>> terminology management. The existence of this group is
>> crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>> It will play two essential roles:
>>
>> a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>> contributions
>> b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>> alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>> terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>
>> It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>> 211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>> experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>> in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>> alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>
>> An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>> communication.
>>
>>
>> 2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.
>>
>> 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 should be openly
>> shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>> criteria.
>>
>> Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>> database at any time. The terminology management group
>> shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>> within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>> with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>> mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>
>> For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>> as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>> proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>> terminology management.
>>
>> The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>> determined and announced so that contributors understand
>> the necessary processes and timeline.
>>
>>
>> 3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>
>> Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>> means people need to first know they exist and what they
>> mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>> ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>> multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>> on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>> use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>> managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>> serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>> in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>> consume the content.
>>
>> The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>> streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>> structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>> to the website. The website operates according to best
>> practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>> search functionality. Security and performance have always
>> been key considerations.
>>
>> For terms that originate from other authoritative
>> terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>> linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>> database back to the source.
>>
>>
>> 4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>> functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>> GitHub).
>>
>> The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>> between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>> every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>> minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>> used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>
>> There are generally two types of contributors:
>>
>> a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>> b) 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 in formatting
>> the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>> allows the terminology management group to directly
>> approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>> (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>> single click.
>>
>>
>> 5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>
>> The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>> from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>> compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>> conversion from table format into the desired structured
>> data format.
>>
>> The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>> Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________
>>
>> Ronald Tse
>> Ribose Inc.
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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/
>> <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/
>> <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:
>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>
>> (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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>
>>
>>
>> Charter Member
>>
>>
>>
>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Technology Demystifier
>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>
>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>> Charter Member
>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Rob Atkinson-4
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






Rob Atkinson <[hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:45 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron,

thank you for your support but i would like to yield my suggested nomination as a chair of this new committee to someone, in my opinion, who is more involved with the workings of OSGEO. i do however plan to remain active and involved with the workings and discussions of the group, hopefully in some type of registered capacity. i am sure there are a number of OSGEO members who may be interested in such a position. 

i am not certain if OSGEO has an official working language or not. i dont know enough about the demographics of the OSGEO members. i hesitate to suggest any language requirements for members of  the group, however i am assuming that  the official fundamental terminology entries will be developed and/or harmonized, and maintained in english.  "approved" terminology entries may then be translated by experts of their respective languages, similar to how our group in TC211 works.  the unique requirements of the group enable many opportunities for participation.  

it is difficult to decided without more consultation if this is how the group will function but from what you initially were proposing, it seems this is a common structure and procedural framework of such a group.

there could also be some level of a consensus and feedback, however that  process "flow" depends upon the operating structure of OSGEO, therefore, in my opinion, the chair of the committee should be someone from OSGEO.

i am happy to discuss off list or via telecon at your convenience.

reese

----- Original Message -----
From:
"Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>

To:
"Victoria Rautenbach" <[hidden email]>, "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
Cc:
<[hidden email]>, "Board" <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:16:14 +1100
Subject:
Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....


Angelos,

We haven't discussed selecting a chair of the committee yet, but I will
be suggesting Reese and/or Ron as we bootstrap this committee. They both
have been been very active in setting up this initiative and come with
lots of experience.

On 22/10/19 10:47 pm, Victoria Rautenbach wrote:
> Dear All
>
> This is a great initiative, thank you Cameron and Reese. I fully
> support this initiative and working with the ISO/TC 211 TMG on their
> mature terminology database.
>
> Reese, will be great to work with you again!
>
> Regards
> Victoria
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Have you decided on a committee chair?
>> Who will be the point of contact for the board?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Angelos
>>
>> On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> OSGeo Board,
>>
>> On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them before hand in this email thread.
>>
>> We have started a wiki page for the committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Cameron
>>
>> On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>>
>> Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese (Tokyo).
>>
>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734 <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734>
>>
>> Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an interest and an opinion.
>>
>> On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
>> I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC
>>
>> On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are in this Asian/Australia timezone.
>>
>> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>>
>> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know. sorry about this time.
>> reese
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>> "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>
>> To:
>> "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>> <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>> <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
>> Cc:
>> "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>> Sent:
>> Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>> Subject:
>> Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>> osgeo-standards ....
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>> discuss this issue?
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>
>> Regards,
>> Angelos
>>
>> On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>
>> I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>> have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>> I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>> Committee.
>>
>> I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>> requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>> committee here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>
>> Comments welcomed.
>>
>> On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>> to reflect your comments below.
>>
>> I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>> OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>> already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>> seems pretty committed already :-)
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> ———
>>
>> Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>
>> 1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>
>> ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>> terminology management. The existence of this group is
>> crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>> It will play two essential roles:
>>
>> a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>> contributions
>> b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>> alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>> terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>
>> It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>> 211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>> experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>> in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>> alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>
>> An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>> communication.
>>
>>
>> 2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology management.
>>
>> 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 should be openly
>> shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>> criteria.
>>
>> Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>> database at any time. The terminology management group
>> shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>> within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>> with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>> mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>
>> For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>> as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>> proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>> terminology management.
>>
>> The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>> determined and announced so that contributors understand
>> the necessary processes and timeline.
>>
>>
>> 3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>
>> Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>> means people need to first know they exist and what they
>> mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>> ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>> multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>> on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>> use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>> managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>> serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>> in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>> consume the content.
>>
>> The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>> streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>> structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>> to the website. The website operates according to best
>> practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>> search functionality. Security and performance have always
>> been key considerations.
>>
>> For terms that originate from other authoritative
>> terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>> linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>> database back to the source.
>>
>>
>> 4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>> functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>> GitHub).
>>
>> The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>> between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>> every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>> minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>> used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>
>> There are generally two types of contributors:
>>
>> a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>> b) 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 in formatting
>> the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>> allows the terminology management group to directly
>> approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>> (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>> single click.
>>
>>
>> 5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>
>> The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>> from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>> compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>> conversion from table format into the desired structured
>> data format.
>>
>> The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>> Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________
>>
>> Ronald Tse
>> Ribose Inc.
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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/
>> <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/
>> <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:
>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>
>> (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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>
>>
>>
>> Charter Member
>>
>>
>>
>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Technology Demystifier
>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>
>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>> Charter Member
>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

Location Powers: Data Science
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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by rplews
Rob, Reese, all,
I'm keen to see us focusing on quick wins first, an ensuring we have a
simple and sustainable process that anyone within the OSGeo community
can easily engage with.

0. Current state is that ~ half of the OSGeo projects have HTML
glossaries, without any fixed guidelines or consistency between them.

1. Initial proposal from one of our tech writers (Felicity) was to
aggregate into a master glossary. That would be easy, valuable, and
could easily be linked into the existing OSGeoLive annual build process.

2. The next step which I'm hoping Reese and Ron can champion is to add a
light approval process to this, which helps standardise terminology
used. Ron and Reese have provided excellent recommendations in this
regard. I think it can be light weight and sustainable with volunteer
effort with existing tools proposed. THIS WOULD BE HUGELY VALUABLE AS
IS. I think it should be the first milestone we aim for.

3. OSGeo terminology can be sourced from OGC and ISO terminology, and a
process can be introduced to mature OSGeo terminology into OGC/ISO lexicon.

4. Rob has suggested taking this further, which I'm okay with if
resources can be found, but I think it we should bed down step 2 first
and focus on building a light weight and sustainable OSGeo Lexicon
community.

On 24/10/19 5:21 pm, Rob Atkinson wrote:

>
> Thanks Reese
>
> very happy to give this group and ISO as much support as possible on
> behalf of OGC. I've linked Gobe Hobona, Ingo Simonis and Martin Klopfer
> into this loop as stakeholders in the OGC/ISO discussion (and my time
> allocation).
>
> Its been a while since I gave feedback on the ISO glossary I was asked
> to review.
>
> The key issue was that the same concept was given different URIs for
> different language versions, and no relations between these alternatives
> were present - whereas I recommended using the inbuilt RDF capability of
> tagging different labels with the language - (and using things like SKOS
> altLabel semantics if there are non-preferred versions of labels)
>
> The second issue if the content is in good shape is the governance
> arrangement and status OGC hosted content would have - expectation is
> we'd want objects to have ISO namespace..
>
> The third issue will be making ISO namespaces resolve so OGC machinery
> can serve out all the different views of definitions - we want to
> support applications accessing via JSON or RDF - with the HTML view
> being a secondary consideration. (working with this group to improve
> HTML views by understanding requirements for these is a valuable
> opportunity for us)
>
> In terms of capabilities:
>
> I will be preparing an update for documentation for OGC infrastructure -
> at the moment I'm updating it to support the W3C specification for
> functional behaviour (how to find and ask for available flavours - aka
> profiles).
>
> Part of this will include documentation of the available profiles (and
> feedback from groups such as this as to any useful additions
> improvements to these).
>
> The options for data management are varied - we are still working
> through optimal patterns - in general most content is batched managed as
> a result of it coming through a specification pipeline - but we have a
> full open source CMS option (django) we could use for managing content -
> mainly we just use it to register git controlled resources.  We support
> SKOS standard - but have created some scripts for common forms such as
> GML dictionaries, and accessing APIs into other parts of the OGC
> infrastructure.
>
> So, at this stage I would suggest we are not resourced well enough to
> support a full term-by-term submission and registration process via good
> enough UI - and other options should be considered for collaborative
> editing and registration (including updating the open source modules we
> use to support your desired workflows). If, for example,  the GeoLexia
> offering can be extended to interoperate with the canonical content via
> OGC Definitions Server then that fits in with OGC  focus on
> interoperability of the published content and publishing static content
> on behalf of its community (including liaisons as required)
>
>
>
> Rob Atkinson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Senior Research Engineer
> Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/
>
> The OGC: Making location count.
>

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by rplews
Reese, these are questions we can flesh out of the coming weeks. I
propose upcoming steps:

* Receive endorsement from OSGeo Board at the next meeting in a week or
so to be officially recognised as an OSGeo committee.

* Set up an OSGeo Lexicon email list (action on me to coordinate)

* Continue fleshing out our draft OSGeo Lexicon process as per here:
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee

* In a few weeks, reach out to OSGeo projects again and invite them to
join our email list and committee. Hopefully pick up a few people.
(action on me)

* Bootstrap our OSGeo Lexicon committee. (Action on me to coordinate,
I'll be leaning on others to step up to chair).

* Refine and agree on our priorities and processes
** Yes, language used will be English, and likely will lead to
translating to other languages in future stages.

On 24/10/19 12:45 pm, [hidden email] wrote:

> thank you for your support but i would like to yield my suggested
> nomination as a chair of this new committee to someone, in my opinion,
> who is more involved with the workings of OSGEO. i do however plan to
> remain active and involved with the workings and discussions of the
> group, hopefully in some type of registered capacity. i am sure there
> are a number of OSGEO members who may be interested in such a position.
>
> i am not certain if OSGEO has an official working language or not. i
> dont know enough about the demographics of the OSGEO members. i
> hesitate to suggest any language requirements for members of  the
> group, however i am assuming that  the official fundamental
> terminology entries will be developed and/or harmonized, and
> maintained in english.  "approved" terminology entries may then be
> translated by experts of their respective languages, similar to how
> our group in TC211 works.  the unique requirements of the group enable
> many opportunities for participation.
>
> it is difficult to decided without more consultation if this is how
> the group will function but from what you initially were proposing, it
> seems this is a common structure and procedural framework of such a
> group.
>
> there could also be some level of a consensus and feedback, however
> that  process "flow" depends upon the operating structure of OSGEO,
> therefore, in my opinion, the chair of the committee should be someone
> from OSGEO.
>
> i am happy to discuss off list or via telecon at your convenience.

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Rob Atkinson-4
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Inline...


Rob Atkinson <[hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:50 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Rob, Reese, all,
I'm keen to see us focusing on quick wins first,\

always an imperative
 
an ensuring we have a
simple and sustainable process

simple and sustainable are likely to be a source of tension...  think Java dependencies - maven makes it sustainable because it does not force oversimplification - the cost is you have to invest in the machinery to keep simple pieces working smoothly together.  (and any Java old-timers will know how painful it was when we had the "simple" solution of a few mega-libraries that changed every-single-freaking-day...

 
that anyone within the OSGeo community
can easily engage with.

this is the right focus - making the engagement simple - and let the solution fall out the best way possible.
 
0. Current state is that ~ half of the OSGeo projects have HTML
glossaries, without any fixed guidelines or consistency between them.

1. Initial proposal from one of our tech writers (Felicity) was to
aggregate into a master glossary. That would be easy, valuable, and
could easily be linked into the existing OSGeoLive annual build process.

this is critical - the aggregation needs to be a modular and disciplined approach that allows updates to be automated. If you get this wrong now then "sustainable" becomes a pipe dream.
OGC manages this by "graphs" - each set of concepts is scoped in a ConceptScheme (what it is) that is treated as a Register (how it is managed) and has a Namespace (how it is accessed and concept identifiers are turned into URIs to access it). Graphs are also the unit by which sets of terms can be packaged - so for example getting the set of available status codes.

Each ConceptScheme has two related things - the metadata of the thing and the "collection" view - which is a hierarchical view of the contents bundled into Collections. 

eg.


(ps this example shows a number of the things we need to improve in the UI and content - decent descriptions of all these top-level registers, seamless handling of sameAs relationships, better handling of nested properties and labels.  If anyone has a student or intern wanting a Java Velocity project let me know :-)  )



 
2. The next step which I'm hoping Reese and Ron can champion is to add a
light approval process to this, which helps standardise terminology
used.

start with sets - registers - then a means to delegate individual term approvals to designated and documented set owners.  Give me the set of metadata you want to have for each register and I will create a standard profile description for that metadata set, (including SHACL validation specification) and turn it into an interoperable RDF form (and derived JSON-LD form) I can host examples on OGC defs server dev environment - and look to update OGC metadata to follow this profile too - its on my todo list but great to have your needs folded into a solution.


Ron and Reese have provided excellent recommendations in this
regard. I think it can be light weight and sustainable with volunteer
effort with existing tools proposed. THIS WOULD BE HUGELY VALUABLE AS
IS. I think it should be the first milestone we aim for.

If it includes delegation to be sustainable - I would agree. (not delegation can be "virtual" the same people can act as Register Manager - but ownership of each set should be clear - and used to identify appropriate update policies.
 
3. OSGeo terminology can be sourced from OGC and ISO terminology, and a
process can be introduced to mature OSGeo terminology into OGC/ISO lexicon.


 
4. Rob has suggested taking this further,

Not really further - I believe I am suggesting how not to fail before you start :-)  The world is littered with random collections (trust me: I've looked into the Gazetteer problem which is a mess of "simple" point solutions - when it comes to UN disaster response it was estimated to add about three days to response times in emergencies.. )

 
which I'm okay with if
resources can be found,

I dont think what I'm suggesting takes any extra resources (if a technical solution is proposed that can't be made to manage content in separately and simply updateable subsets you need to walk away slowly , maintaining eye contact... ).  I am able to fine tune OGC content and API interfaces to support your needs, and help with any design.

Note - i am not pushing a tech - but I am pushing for open and interoperable interfaces so such a lexicon can be integrated into any client software that needs it.
 
but I think it we should bed down step 2 first
and focus on building a light weight and sustainable OSGeo Lexicon
community.

On 24/10/19 5:21 pm, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> Thanks Reese
>
> very happy to give this group and ISO as much support as possible on
> behalf of OGC. I've linked Gobe Hobona, Ingo Simonis and Martin Klopfer
> into this loop as stakeholders in the OGC/ISO discussion (and my time
> allocation).
>
> Its been a while since I gave feedback on the ISO glossary I was asked
> to review.
>
> The key issue was that the same concept was given different URIs for
> different language versions, and no relations between these alternatives
> were present - whereas I recommended using the inbuilt RDF capability of
> tagging different labels with the language - (and using things like SKOS
> altLabel semantics if there are non-preferred versions of labels)
>
> The second issue if the content is in good shape is the governance
> arrangement and status OGC hosted content would have - expectation is
> we'd want objects to have ISO namespace..
>
> The third issue will be making ISO namespaces resolve so OGC machinery
> can serve out all the different views of definitions - we want to
> support applications accessing via JSON or RDF - with the HTML view
> being a secondary consideration. (working with this group to improve
> HTML views by understanding requirements for these is a valuable
> opportunity for us)
>
> In terms of capabilities:
>
> I will be preparing an update for documentation for OGC infrastructure -
> at the moment I'm updating it to support the W3C specification for
> functional behaviour (how to find and ask for available flavours - aka
> profiles).
>
> Part of this will include documentation of the available profiles (and
> feedback from groups such as this as to any useful additions
> improvements to these).
>
> The options for data management are varied - we are still working
> through optimal patterns - in general most content is batched managed as
> a result of it coming through a specification pipeline - but we have a
> full open source CMS option (django) we could use for managing content -
> mainly we just use it to register git controlled resources.  We support
> SKOS standard - but have created some scripts for common forms such as
> GML dictionaries, and accessing APIs into other parts of the OGC
> infrastructure.
>
> So, at this stage I would suggest we are not resourced well enough to
> support a full term-by-term submission and registration process via good
> enough UI - and other options should be considered for collaborative
> editing and registration (including updating the open source modules we
> use to support your desired workflows). If, for example,  the GeoLexia
> offering can be extended to interoperate with the canonical content via
> OGC Definitions Server then that fits in with OGC  focus on
> interoperability of the published content and publishing static content
> on behalf of its community (including liaisons as required)
>
>
>
> Rob Atkinson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Senior Research Engineer
> Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/
>
> The OGC: Making location count.
>

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

Location Powers: Data Science
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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Rob Atkinson-4

question for the list - Are you aware of any interest or overlap between OsGeo and CKAN?


lots of mentions of CKAN and OsGeo in the community - but not much clarity of whether there is a formal link?

CKAN profiles reference controlled vocabularies -  (AFAIK these are informal condigurations at this point - but they should be identified and shared and interopeable)  and linking CKAN to your OsGEeo lexicon concept seem relevant to consider.  My colleague (from my other job)  Nick Car has been working on CKAN implementation of "Content Negotiation by Profile" [1] and may be able to get some time to look at  standardising and implementing interoperable access to vocabularies.


Rob Atkinson <[hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:49 AM Rob Atkinson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Inline...


Rob Atkinson <[hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:50 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Rob, Reese, all,
I'm keen to see us focusing on quick wins first,\

always an imperative
 
an ensuring we have a
simple and sustainable process

simple and sustainable are likely to be a source of tension...  think Java dependencies - maven makes it sustainable because it does not force oversimplification - the cost is you have to invest in the machinery to keep simple pieces working smoothly together.  (and any Java old-timers will know how painful it was when we had the "simple" solution of a few mega-libraries that changed every-single-freaking-day...

 
that anyone within the OSGeo community
can easily engage with.

this is the right focus - making the engagement simple - and let the solution fall out the best way possible.
 
0. Current state is that ~ half of the OSGeo projects have HTML
glossaries, without any fixed guidelines or consistency between them.

1. Initial proposal from one of our tech writers (Felicity) was to
aggregate into a master glossary. That would be easy, valuable, and
could easily be linked into the existing OSGeoLive annual build process.

this is critical - the aggregation needs to be a modular and disciplined approach that allows updates to be automated. If you get this wrong now then "sustainable" becomes a pipe dream.
OGC manages this by "graphs" - each set of concepts is scoped in a ConceptScheme (what it is) that is treated as a Register (how it is managed) and has a Namespace (how it is accessed and concept identifiers are turned into URIs to access it). Graphs are also the unit by which sets of terms can be packaged - so for example getting the set of available status codes.

Each ConceptScheme has two related things - the metadata of the thing and the "collection" view - which is a hierarchical view of the contents bundled into Collections. 

eg.


(ps this example shows a number of the things we need to improve in the UI and content - decent descriptions of all these top-level registers, seamless handling of sameAs relationships, better handling of nested properties and labels.  If anyone has a student or intern wanting a Java Velocity project let me know :-)  )



 
2. The next step which I'm hoping Reese and Ron can champion is to add a
light approval process to this, which helps standardise terminology
used.

start with sets - registers - then a means to delegate individual term approvals to designated and documented set owners.  Give me the set of metadata you want to have for each register and I will create a standard profile description for that metadata set, (including SHACL validation specification) and turn it into an interoperable RDF form (and derived JSON-LD form) I can host examples on OGC defs server dev environment - and look to update OGC metadata to follow this profile too - its on my todo list but great to have your needs folded into a solution.


Ron and Reese have provided excellent recommendations in this
regard. I think it can be light weight and sustainable with volunteer
effort with existing tools proposed. THIS WOULD BE HUGELY VALUABLE AS
IS. I think it should be the first milestone we aim for.

If it includes delegation to be sustainable - I would agree. (not delegation can be "virtual" the same people can act as Register Manager - but ownership of each set should be clear - and used to identify appropriate update policies.
 
3. OSGeo terminology can be sourced from OGC and ISO terminology, and a
process can be introduced to mature OSGeo terminology into OGC/ISO lexicon.


 
4. Rob has suggested taking this further,

Not really further - I believe I am suggesting how not to fail before you start :-)  The world is littered with random collections (trust me: I've looked into the Gazetteer problem which is a mess of "simple" point solutions - when it comes to UN disaster response it was estimated to add about three days to response times in emergencies.. )

 
which I'm okay with if
resources can be found,

I dont think what I'm suggesting takes any extra resources (if a technical solution is proposed that can't be made to manage content in separately and simply updateable subsets you need to walk away slowly , maintaining eye contact... ).  I am able to fine tune OGC content and API interfaces to support your needs, and help with any design.

Note - i am not pushing a tech - but I am pushing for open and interoperable interfaces so such a lexicon can be integrated into any client software that needs it.
 
but I think it we should bed down step 2 first
and focus on building a light weight and sustainable OSGeo Lexicon
community.

On 24/10/19 5:21 pm, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> Thanks Reese
>
> very happy to give this group and ISO as much support as possible on
> behalf of OGC. I've linked Gobe Hobona, Ingo Simonis and Martin Klopfer
> into this loop as stakeholders in the OGC/ISO discussion (and my time
> allocation).
>
> Its been a while since I gave feedback on the ISO glossary I was asked
> to review.
>
> The key issue was that the same concept was given different URIs for
> different language versions, and no relations between these alternatives
> were present - whereas I recommended using the inbuilt RDF capability of
> tagging different labels with the language - (and using things like SKOS
> altLabel semantics if there are non-preferred versions of labels)
>
> The second issue if the content is in good shape is the governance
> arrangement and status OGC hosted content would have - expectation is
> we'd want objects to have ISO namespace..
>
> The third issue will be making ISO namespaces resolve so OGC machinery
> can serve out all the different views of definitions - we want to
> support applications accessing via JSON or RDF - with the HTML view
> being a secondary consideration. (working with this group to improve
> HTML views by understanding requirements for these is a valuable
> opportunity for us)
>
> In terms of capabilities:
>
> I will be preparing an update for documentation for OGC infrastructure -
> at the moment I'm updating it to support the W3C specification for
> functional behaviour (how to find and ask for available flavours - aka
> profiles).
>
> Part of this will include documentation of the available profiles (and
> feedback from groups such as this as to any useful additions
> improvements to these).
>
> The options for data management are varied - we are still working
> through optimal patterns - in general most content is batched managed as
> a result of it coming through a specification pipeline - but we have a
> full open source CMS option (django) we could use for managing content -
> mainly we just use it to register git controlled resources.  We support
> SKOS standard - but have created some scripts for common forms such as
> GML dictionaries, and accessing APIs into other parts of the OGC
> infrastructure.
>
> So, at this stage I would suggest we are not resourced well enough to
> support a full term-by-term submission and registration process via good
> enough UI - and other options should be considered for collaborative
> editing and registration (including updating the open source modules we
> use to support your desired workflows). If, for example,  the GeoLexia
> offering can be extended to interoperate with the canonical content via
> OGC Definitions Server then that fits in with OGC  focus on
> interoperability of the published content and publishing static content
> on behalf of its community (including liaisons as required)
>
>
>
> Rob Atkinson <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Senior Research Engineer
> Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/
>
> The OGC: Making location count.
>

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

Location Powers: Data Science
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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Angelos Tzotsos
Hi,

CKAN has been using pycsw (OSGeo project) and OWSLib (OSGeo Community Project)for many years now.

On 10/25/19 6:48 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
question for the list - Are you aware of any interest or overlap between
OsGeo and CKAN?

this is oldish: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Location_in_CKAN

lots of mentions of CKAN and OsGeo in the community - but not much clarity
of whether there is a formal link?

CKAN profiles reference controlled vocabularies -  (AFAIK these are
informal condigurations at this point - but they should be identified and
shared and interopeable)  and linking CKAN to your OsGEeo lexicon concept
seem relevant to consider.  My colleague (from my other job)  Nick Car has
been working on CKAN implementation of "Content Negotiation by Profile" [1]
and may be able to get some time to look at  standardising and implementing
interoperable access to vocabularies.

[1]  https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof-conneg/

Rob Atkinson <[hidden email] [hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:49 AM Rob Atkinson [hidden email] wrote:

Inline...


Rob Atkinson <[hidden email] [hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:50 AM Cameron Shorter [hidden email]
wrote:

Rob, Reese, all,
I'm keen to see us focusing on quick wins first,\

always an imperative


an ensuring we have a
simple and sustainable process

simple and sustainable are likely to be a source of tension...  think Java
dependencies - maven makes it sustainable because it does not force
oversimplification - the cost is you have to invest in the machinery to
keep simple pieces working smoothly together.  (and any Java old-timers
will know how painful it was when we had the "simple" solution of a few
mega-libraries that changed every-single-freaking-day...



that anyone within the OSGeo community
can easily engage with.

this is the right focus - making the engagement simple - and let the
solution fall out the best way possible.


0. Current state is that ~ half of the OSGeo projects have HTML
glossaries, without any fixed guidelines or consistency between them.

1. Initial proposal from one of our tech writers (Felicity) was to
aggregate into a master glossary. That would be easy, valuable, and
could easily be linked into the existing OSGeoLive annual build process.

this is critical - the aggregation needs to be a modular and disciplined
approach that allows updates to be automated. If you get this wrong now
then "sustainable" becomes a pipe dream.
OGC manages this by "graphs" - each set of concepts is scoped in a
ConceptScheme (what it is) that is treated as a Register (how it is
managed) and has a Namespace (how it is accessed and concept identifiers
are turned into URIs to access it). Graphs are also the unit by which sets
of terms can be packaged - so for example getting the set of available
status codes.

Each ConceptScheme has two related things - the metadata of the thing and
the "collection" view - which is a hierarchical view of the contents
bundled into Collections.

eg.

ConceptScheme : http://www.opengis.net/def/dataType
Collection View: http://www.opengis.net/def/dataType/
Sub-collection: http://www.opengis.net/def/dataType/IETF-RFC-4646/

(ps this example shows a number of the things we need to improve in the UI
and content - decent descriptions of all these top-level registers,
seamless handling of sameAs relationships, better handling of nested
properties and labels.  If anyone has a student or intern wanting a Java
Velocity project let me know :-)  )





2. The next step which I'm hoping Reese and Ron can champion is to add a
light approval process to this, which helps standardise terminology
used.

start with sets - registers - then a means to delegate individual term
approvals to designated and documented set owners.  Give me the set of
metadata you want to have for each register and I will create a standard
profile description for that metadata set, (including SHACL validation
specification) and turn it into an interoperable RDF form (and derived
JSON-LD form) I can host examples on OGC defs server dev environment - and
look to update OGC metadata to follow this profile too - its on my todo
list but great to have your needs folded into a solution.


Ron and Reese have provided excellent recommendations in this
regard. I think it can be light weight and sustainable with volunteer
effort with existing tools proposed. THIS WOULD BE HUGELY VALUABLE AS
IS. I think it should be the first milestone we aim for.

If it includes delegation to be sustainable - I would agree. (not
delegation can be "virtual" the same people can act as Register Manager -
but ownership of each set should be clear - and used to identify
appropriate update policies.


3. OSGeo terminology can be sourced from OGC and ISO terminology, and a
process can be introduced to mature OSGeo terminology into OGC/ISO
lexicon.



4. Rob has suggested taking this further,

Not really further - I believe I am suggesting how not to fail before you
start :-)  The world is littered with random collections (trust me: I've
looked into the Gazetteer problem which is a mess of "simple" point
solutions - when it comes to UN disaster response it was estimated to add
about three days to response times in emergencies.. )



which I'm okay with if
resources can be found,

I dont think what I'm suggesting takes any extra resources (if a technical
solution is proposed that can't be made to manage content in separately and
simply updateable subsets you need to walk away slowly , maintaining eye
contact... ).  I am able to fine tune OGC content and API interfaces to
support your needs, and help with any design.

Note - i am not pushing a tech - but I am pushing for open and
interoperable interfaces so such a lexicon can be integrated into any
client software that needs it.


but I think it we should bed down step 2 first
and focus on building a light weight and sustainable OSGeo Lexicon
community.

On 24/10/19 5:21 pm, Rob Atkinson wrote:
Thanks Reese

very happy to give this group and ISO as much support as possible on
behalf of OGC. I've linked Gobe Hobona, Ingo Simonis and Martin Klopfer
into this loop as stakeholders in the OGC/ISO discussion (and my time
allocation).

Its been a while since I gave feedback on the ISO glossary I was asked
to review.

The key issue was that the same concept was given different URIs for
different language versions, and no relations between these
alternatives
were present - whereas I recommended using the inbuilt RDF capability
of
tagging different labels with the language - (and using things like
SKOS
altLabel semantics if there are non-preferred versions of labels)

The second issue if the content is in good shape is the governance
arrangement and status OGC hosted content would have - expectation is
we'd want objects to have ISO namespace..

The third issue will be making ISO namespaces resolve so OGC machinery
can serve out all the different views of definitions - we want to
support applications accessing via JSON or RDF - with the HTML view
being a secondary consideration. (working with this group to improve
HTML views by understanding requirements for these is a valuable
opportunity for us)

In terms of capabilities:

I will be preparing an update for documentation for OGC infrastructure
-
at the moment I'm updating it to support the W3C specification for
functional behaviour (how to find and ask for available flavours - aka
profiles).

Part of this will include documentation of the available profiles (and
feedback from groups such as this as to any useful additions
improvements to these).

The options for data management are varied - we are still working
through optimal patterns - in general most content is batched managed
as
a result of it coming through a specification pipeline - but we have a
full open source CMS option (django) we could use for managing content
-
mainly we just use it to register git controlled resources.  We support
SKOS standard - but have created some scripts for common forms such as
GML dictionaries, and accessing APIs into other parts of the OGC
infrastructure.

So, at this stage I would suggest we are not resourced well enough to
support a full term-by-term submission and registration process via
good
enough UI - and other options should be considered for collaborative
editing and registration (including updating the open source modules we
use to support your desired workflows). If, for example,  the GeoLexia
offering can be extended to interoperate with the canonical content via
OGC Definitions Server then that fits in with OGC  focus on
interoperability of the published content and publishing static content
on behalf of its community (including liaisons as required)



Rob Atkinson <[hidden email] [hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254


      

      
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Hi Angelos, board,
That is a good question. Working the lexicon community within the standards committee is something we should consider. While I wouldn't want to rule it out as an option, I'd vote -0 for it.
My reasoning:
* The lexicon committee is only focusing on one very narrow use case within the greater OSGeo/Standards space.
* The standards committee has a very board focus across all standards related use cases. In particular, it has focused on managing the relationship between OSGeo and OGC.
* The lexicon committee will be very noisy within this very specific lexicon use case. People interested in general standards will be swapped with emails and I predict we will very quickly kill off any other standards related conversations due to the noise.
* The standards committee is relatively quiet, and it could be argued that we could consider retiring the standards committee and restart it as a lexicon committee. I don't think this is the case. I think the standards committee still has meaning and purpose.

For these reasons, I believe the Lexicon and Standards committees should be kept separate. 

For my next steps, I'm hoping to follow this process:
1. Get endorsement from the board.
2. Create a new [hidden email] email list
3. Reach out to OSGeo projects and invite them to join the list and participate in a committee
4. Boostrap a lexicon committee
5. Committee members to vote for a committee chair
6. Start getting serious about the work we are doing.

I'm hoping that the board can discuss via email, ask questions which I'll answer, then we can set up a motion and help us move through the steps above.

Warm regards, Cameron

For reference, I've copied comments from the board meeting:

16:22:49helena_:#7 Lexicon committee
16:23:13helena_:they keep changing the name but it is an important initiative
16:23:37astroidex:just a question. Could it be part of one existing committee?
16:23:47delawen:(I'm back did I miss any voting?)
16:23:50kalxas:I am wondering why this has to be a separate committee from standards
16:24:03astroidex:same for me
16:24:06kalxas:delawen, no :)
16:24:19astroidex:it could be part of education
16:24:38delawen:if they feel they have enough work to be isolated... see no reason why not
16:24:43astroidex:https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
16:24:44sigq:Title: Committees - OSGeo (at www.osgeo.org)
16:24:44kalxas:given that OGC and ISO are involved, I think it should be standards
16:24:53delawen:but I would give them some time to do stuff before making them official
16:25:41delawen:If you think it should be standards, we can answer them that
16:25:41kalxas:also, we do need a chair to approve them, right?
16:26:00helena_:Angelos - can you please get bcak to Cameron with suggestion from the board to make it part of standards?
16:26:25astroidex:good idea
16:26:44kalxas:yes, I can follow up

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 02:30, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Cameron,

The formation of the lexicon committee was discussed during the board
meeting yesterday.
One question that came up is: what is the reason this work cannot be
done under the standards committee, since this involves members from
OSGeo, OGC and ISO?

Regards,
Angelos

On 10/24/19 12:16 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Angelos,
>
> We haven't discussed selecting a chair of the committee yet, but I
> will be suggesting Reese and/or Ron as we bootstrap this committee.
> They both have been been very active in setting up this initiative and
> come with lots of experience.
>
> On 22/10/19 10:47 pm, Victoria Rautenbach wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> This is a great initiative, thank you Cameron and Reese. I fully
>> support this initiative and working with the ISO/TC 211 TMG on their
>> mature terminology database.
>>
>> Reese, will be great to work with you again!
>>
>> Regards
>> Victoria
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Angelos Tzotsos
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>> Have you decided on a committee chair?
>>> Who will be the point of contact for the board?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Angelos
>>>
>>> On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> OSGeo Board,
>>>
>>> On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board
>>> agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo
>>> Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during
>>> this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in
>>> person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them
>>> before hand in this email thread.
>>>
>>> We have started a wiki page for the committee here:
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think
>>> this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese
>>> (Tokyo).
>>>
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734
>>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this
>>> proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting
>>> coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an
>>> interest and an opinion.
>>>
>>> On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
>>> I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC
>>>
>>> On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are
>>> in this Asian/Australia timezone.
>>>
>>> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite
>>> easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with
>>> the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>>>
>>> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me,
>>> local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can
>>> do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry
>>> about this time.
>>> reese
>>>
>>>
>>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>>      From:
>>>      "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>      To:
>>>      "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>>> <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>>> <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Cc:
>>>      "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Sent:
>>>      Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>>>      Subject:
>>>      Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>>>      osgeo-standards ....
>>>
>>>
>>>      Hi all,
>>>
>>>      Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>>>      discuss this issue?
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>>
>>>      Regards,
>>>      Angelos
>>>
>>>      On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>          OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>>
>>>          I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>>>          have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>>>          I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>>>          Committee.
>>>
>>>          I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>>>          requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>>>          committee here:
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>>
>>>          Comments welcomed.
>>>
>>>          On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>>
>>>              Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>>              Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>>>              to reflect your comments below.
>>>
>>>              I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>>>              OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>>>              already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>>>              seems pretty committed already :-)
>>>
>>>              Ron
>>>
>>>              ———
>>>
>>>              Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>>
>>>              1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>>
>>>              ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>>>              terminology management. The existence of this group is
>>>              crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>>>              It will play two essential roles:
>>>
>>>              a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>>>              contributions
>>>              b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>>>              alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>>>              terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>>
>>>              It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>>>              211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>>>              experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>>>              in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>>>              alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>>
>>>              An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>>>              communication.
>>>
>>>
>>>              2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology
>>> management.
>>>
>>>              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 should be openly
>>>              shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>>>              criteria.
>>>
>>>              Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>>>              database at any time. The terminology management group
>>>              shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>>>              within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>>>              with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>>>              mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>>
>>>              For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>>>              as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>>>              proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>>>              terminology management.
>>>
>>>              The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>>>              determined and announced so that contributors understand
>>>              the necessary processes and timeline.
>>>
>>>
>>>              3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>>
>>>              Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>>>              means people need to first know they exist and what they
>>>              mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>>>              ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>>>              multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>>>              on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>>>              use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>>>              managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>>>              serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>>>              in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>>>              consume the content.
>>>
>>>              The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>>>              streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>>>              structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>>>              to the website. The website operates according to best
>>>              practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>>>              search functionality. Security and performance have always
>>>              been key considerations.
>>>
>>>              For terms that originate from other authoritative
>>>              terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>>>              linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>>>              database back to the source.
>>>
>>>
>>>              4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>>>              functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>>>              GitHub).
>>>
>>>              The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>>>              between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>>>              every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>>>              minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>>>              used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>>
>>>              There are generally two types of contributors:
>>>
>>>              a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>>>              b) 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 in formatting
>>>              the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>>>              allows the terminology management group to directly
>>>              approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>>>              (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>>>              single click.
>>>
>>>
>>>              5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>>
>>>              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.
>>>
>>>
>>>              6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>>
>>>              The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>>>              from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>>>              compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>>>              conversion from table format into the desired structured
>>>              data format.
>>>
>>>              The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>>>              Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>>
>>>
>>>              _____________________________________
>>>
>>>              Ronald Tse
>>>              Ribose Inc.
>>>
>>>                  On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>                  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/
>>> <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/
>>> <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:
>>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>>
>>>                  (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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              _______________________________________________
>>>              Standards mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>
>>>
>>>      Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Charter Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Technology Demystifier
>>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>>
>>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>> Charter Member
>>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>


--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos



--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254




_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter

Astroidex, Kalxas, Delawen, Helena, OSGeo Board,

Do my answers below address your questions re setting up an OSGeo Lexicon committee?

Within the next few weeks I'm hoping to reach out to those from the OSGeo community who have provided glossaries and are likely to be interested in joining a Lexicon committee. From that committee we can elect a chair.

I'm prefer to have the OSGeo Board's blessing before progressing further. Is that something you'd be prepared to provide?

Cheers, Cameron

On 30/10/19 10:17 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Hi Angelos, board,
That is a good question. Working the lexicon community within the standards committee is something we should consider. While I wouldn't want to rule it out as an option, I'd vote -0 for it.
My reasoning:
* The lexicon committee is only focusing on one very narrow use case within the greater OSGeo/Standards space.
* The standards committee has a very board focus across all standards related use cases. In particular, it has focused on managing the relationship between OSGeo and OGC.
* The lexicon committee will be very noisy within this very specific lexicon use case. People interested in general standards will be swapped with emails and I predict we will very quickly kill off any other standards related conversations due to the noise.
* The standards committee is relatively quiet, and it could be argued that we could consider retiring the standards committee and restart it as a lexicon committee. I don't think this is the case. I think the standards committee still has meaning and purpose.

For these reasons, I believe the Lexicon and Standards committees should be kept separate. 

For my next steps, I'm hoping to follow this process:
1. Get endorsement from the board.
2. Create a new [hidden email] email list
3. Reach out to OSGeo projects and invite them to join the list and participate in a committee
4. Boostrap a lexicon committee
5. Committee members to vote for a committee chair
6. Start getting serious about the work we are doing.

I'm hoping that the board can discuss via email, ask questions which I'll answer, then we can set up a motion and help us move through the steps above.

Warm regards, Cameron

For reference, I've copied comments from the board meeting:

16:22:49 helena_: #7 Lexicon committee
16:23:13 helena_: they keep changing the name but it is an important initiative
16:23:37 astroidex: just a question. Could it be part of one existing committee?
16:23:47 delawen: (I'm back did I miss any voting?)
16:23:50 kalxas: I am wondering why this has to be a separate committee from standards
16:24:03 astroidex: same for me
16:24:06 kalxas: delawen, no :)
16:24:19 astroidex: it could be part of education
16:24:38 delawen: if they feel they have enough work to be isolated... see no reason why not
16:24:43 astroidex: https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
16:24:44 sigq: Title: Committees - OSGeo (at www.osgeo.org)
16:24:44 kalxas: given that OGC and ISO are involved, I think it should be standards
16:24:53 delawen: but I would give them some time to do stuff before making them official
16:25:41 delawen: If you think it should be standards, we can answer them that
16:25:41 kalxas: also, we do need a chair to approve them, right?
16:26:00 helena_: Angelos - can you please get bcak to Cameron with suggestion from the board to make it part of standards?
16:26:25 astroidex: good idea
16:26:44 kalxas: yes, I can follow up

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 02:30, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Cameron,

The formation of the lexicon committee was discussed during the board
meeting yesterday.
One question that came up is: what is the reason this work cannot be
done under the standards committee, since this involves members from
OSGeo, OGC and ISO?

Regards,
Angelos

On 10/24/19 12:16 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Angelos,
>
> We haven't discussed selecting a chair of the committee yet, but I
> will be suggesting Reese and/or Ron as we bootstrap this committee.
> They both have been been very active in setting up this initiative and
> come with lots of experience.
>
> On 22/10/19 10:47 pm, Victoria Rautenbach wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> This is a great initiative, thank you Cameron and Reese. I fully
>> support this initiative and working with the ISO/TC 211 TMG on their
>> mature terminology database.
>>
>> Reese, will be great to work with you again!
>>
>> Regards
>> Victoria
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Angelos Tzotsos
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>> Have you decided on a committee chair?
>>> Who will be the point of contact for the board?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Angelos
>>>
>>> On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> OSGeo Board,
>>>
>>> On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board
>>> agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo
>>> Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during
>>> this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in
>>> person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them
>>> before hand in this email thread.
>>>
>>> We have started a wiki page for the committee here:
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think
>>> this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese
>>> (Tokyo).
>>>
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734
>>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this
>>> proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting
>>> coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an
>>> interest and an opinion.
>>>
>>> On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
>>> I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC
>>>
>>> On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are
>>> in this Asian/Australia timezone.
>>>
>>> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite
>>> easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with
>>> the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>>>
>>> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me,
>>> local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can
>>> do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry
>>> about this time.
>>> reese
>>>
>>>
>>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>>      From:
>>>      "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>      To:
>>>      "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>>> <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>>> <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Cc:
>>>      "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Sent:
>>>      Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>>>      Subject:
>>>      Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>>>      osgeo-standards ....
>>>
>>>
>>>      Hi all,
>>>
>>>      Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>>>      discuss this issue?
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>>
>>>      Regards,
>>>      Angelos
>>>
>>>      On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>          OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>>
>>>          I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>>>          have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>>>          I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>>>          Committee.
>>>
>>>          I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>>>          requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>>>          committee here:
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>>
>>>          Comments welcomed.
>>>
>>>          On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>>
>>>              Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>>              Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>>>              to reflect your comments below.
>>>
>>>              I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>>>              OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>>>              already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>>>              seems pretty committed already :-)
>>>
>>>              Ron
>>>
>>>              ———
>>>
>>>              Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>>
>>>              1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>>
>>>              ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>>>              terminology management. The existence of this group is
>>>              crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>>>              It will play two essential roles:
>>>
>>>              a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>>>              contributions
>>>              b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>>>              alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>>>              terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>>
>>>              It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>>>              211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>>>              experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>>>              in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>>>              alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>>
>>>              An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>>>              communication.
>>>
>>>
>>>              2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology
>>> management.
>>>
>>>              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 should be openly
>>>              shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>>>              criteria.
>>>
>>>              Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>>>              database at any time. The terminology management group
>>>              shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>>>              within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>>>              with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>>>              mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>>
>>>              For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>>>              as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>>>              proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>>>              terminology management.
>>>
>>>              The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>>>              determined and announced so that contributors understand
>>>              the necessary processes and timeline.
>>>
>>>
>>>              3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>>
>>>              Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>>>              means people need to first know they exist and what they
>>>              mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>>>              ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>>>              multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>>>              on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>>>              use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>>>              managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>>>              serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>>>              in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>>>              consume the content.
>>>
>>>              The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>>>              streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>>>              structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>>>              to the website. The website operates according to best
>>>              practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>>>              search functionality. Security and performance have always
>>>              been key considerations.
>>>
>>>              For terms that originate from other authoritative
>>>              terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>>>              linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>>>              database back to the source.
>>>
>>>
>>>              4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>>>              functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>>>              GitHub).
>>>
>>>              The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>>>              between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>>>              every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>>>              minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>>>              used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>>
>>>              There are generally two types of contributors:
>>>
>>>              a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>>>              b) 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 in formatting
>>>              the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>>>              allows the terminology management group to directly
>>>              approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>>>              (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>>>              single click.
>>>
>>>
>>>              5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>>
>>>              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.
>>>
>>>
>>>              6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>>
>>>              The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>>>              from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>>>              compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>>>              conversion from table format into the desired structured
>>>              data format.
>>>
>>>              The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>>>              Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>>
>>>
>>>              _____________________________________
>>>
>>>              Ronald Tse
>>>              Ribose Inc.
>>>
>>>                  On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>                  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/
>>> <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/
>>> <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:
>>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>>
>>>                  (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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              _______________________________________________
>>>              Standards mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>
>>>
>>>      Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Charter Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Technology Demystifier
>>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>>
>>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>> Charter Member
>>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>


--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos



--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254



-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Hi Jorge,
Here is another request to set up an email list. Hope you have some
bandwidth to set up for us:
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/2377#ticket

Rob, speak up if you would like your name added to the email list admin.

On 5/11/19 7:24 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Thanks for the research Helena,
>
> It sounds like an OSGeo Special Interest Group will address our Lexicon
> Committee requirements. Unless there are any objections, I propose to
> push forward with our agenda of setting up an email list, building a
> committee, selecting a chair, and getting some work done.
>
> If you have any objections, please respond ASAP, ideally within the next
> 48 hours.
>
> --
>
> Further to Helena's research:
>
> * Yes, I'd suggest special interest groups should be listed on the website.
>
> * I found this page: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Interest_Groups which
> I'd suggest should be made official by the board. It currently states:
> "This page documents the current dicsussion and has not yet been
> approved as official OSGeo policy!"
>
> * The OSGeo Standards Committee should get a page somewhere. I'm pretty
> sure it had one before, but I can't find it now.
>
> On 2/11/19 1:22 pm, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>> I looked into this a little bit and I did not find any Standards
>> committee here
>> https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Main_Page
>> https://www.osgeo.org/about/board/
>>
>> But I found OSGeo Standards special interest group and associated
>> mailing list:
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Special-Interest-Groups-f5179645.html
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Standards-f5012448.html
>> Interestingly enough, I could not find the special interest groups on
>> the new website - is it something that should be added there?
>>
>> I don’t think that board vote is needed to establish a special
>> interest group and mailing list,
>> But the board can voice support and endorsement - I would like to
>> voice my support here if the special interest group is the way to go.
>>
>> Cameron, if you think that it would be better to have Lexicon as an
>> official OSGeo committee (with everything that comes with it, see
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines), then apparently,
>>  the board needs to vote to approve the committee chair
>> according to the guidelines (which I believe are partially based on
>> the bylaws).
>>
>> I hope this clarifies the process somewhat and cameron please let us
>> know which way you would like to go,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the initiative, Helena
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Astroidex, Kalxas, Delawen, Helena, OSGeo Board,
>>>
>>> Do my answers below address your questions re setting up an OSGeo
>>> Lexicon committee?
>>>
>>> Within the next few weeks I'm hoping to reach out to those from the
>>> OSGeo community who have provided glossaries and are likely to be
>>> interested in joining a Lexicon committee. From that committee we can
>>> elect a chair.
>>>
>>> I'm prefer to have the OSGeo Board's blessing before progressing
>>> further. Is that something you'd be prepared to provide?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 30/10/19 10:17 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>> Hi Angelos, board,
>>>> That is a good question. Working the lexicon community within the
>>>> standards committee is something we should consider. While I
>>>> wouldn't want to rule it out as an option, I'd vote -0 for it.
>>>> My reasoning:
>>>> * The lexicon committee is only focusing on one very narrow use case
>>>> within the greater OSGeo/Standards space.
>>>> * The standards committee has a very board focus across all
>>>> standards related use cases. In particular, it has focused on
>>>> managing the relationship between OSGeo and OGC.
>>>> * The lexicon committee will be very noisy within this very specific
>>>> lexicon use case. People interested in general standards will be
>>>> swapped with emails and I predict we will very quickly kill off any
>>>> other standards related conversations due to the noise.
>>>> * The standards committee is relatively quiet, and it could be
>>>> argued that we could consider retiring the standards committee and
>>>> restart it as a lexicon committee. I don't think this is the case. I
>>>> think the standards committee still has meaning and purpose.
>>>>
>>>> For these reasons, I believe the Lexicon and Standards committees
>>>> should be kept separate.
>>>>
>>>> For my next steps, I'm hoping to follow this process:
>>>> 1. Get endorsement from the board.
>>>> 2. Create a new [hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> email list
>>>> 3. Reach out to OSGeo projects and invite them to join the list and
>>>> participate in a committee
>>>> 4. Boostrap a lexicon committee
>>>> 5. Committee members to vote for a committee chair
>>>> 6. Start getting serious about the work we are doing.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping that the board can discuss via email, ask questions which
>>>> I'll answer, then we can set up a motion and help us move through
>>>> the steps above.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>
>>>> For reference, I've copied comments from the board meeting:
>>>> http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2019-10-28.log
>>>>
>>>> 16:22:49 helena_: #7 Lexicon committee
>>>> 16:23:13 helena_: they keep changing the name but it is an
>>>> important initiative
>>>> 16:23:37 astroidex: just a question. Could it be part of one
>>>> existing committee?
>>>> 16:23:47 delawen: (I'm back did I miss any voting?)
>>>> 16:23:50 kalxas: I am wondering why this has to be a separate
>>>> committee from standards
>>>> 16:24:03 astroidex: same for me
>>>> 16:24:06 kalxas: delawen, no :)
>>>> 16:24:19 astroidex: it could be part of education
>>>> 16:24:38 delawen: if they feel they have enough work to be
>>>> isolated... see no reason why not
>>>> 16:24:43 astroidex: https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
>>>> 16:24:44 sigq: Title: Committees - OSGeo (at www.osgeo.org
>>>> <http://www.osgeo.org/>)
>>>> 16:24:44 kalxas: given that OGC and ISO are involved, I think it
>>>> should be standards
>>>> 16:24:53 delawen: but I would give them some time to do stuff
>>>> before making them official
>>>> 16:25:41 delawen: If you think it should be standards, we can
>>>> answer them that
>>>> 16:25:41 kalxas: also, we do need a chair to approve them, right?
>>>> 16:26:00 helena_: Angelos - can you please get bcak to Cameron
>>>> with suggestion from the board to make it part of standards?
>>>> 16:26:25 astroidex: good idea
>>>> 16:26:44 kalxas: yes, I can follow up
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 02:30, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi Cameron,
>>>>
>>>>     The formation of the lexicon committee was discussed during the
>>>>     board
>>>>     meeting yesterday.
>>>>     One question that came up is: what is the reason this work
>>>>     cannot be
>>>>     done under the standards committee, since this involves members
>>>>     from
>>>>     OSGeo, OGC and ISO?

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Rob Atkinson-4
No I think I should be a contributor for the "how to" not a driver.

NB I'm preparing some docs for the OGC Definitions Server - would appreciate some review and feedback to make it useful to folks like yourselves..



Rob Atkinson <[hidden email]>
Senior Research Engineer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/

The OGC: Making location count.


On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:38 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Jorge,
Here is another request to set up an email list. Hope you have some
bandwidth to set up for us:
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/2377#ticket

Rob, speak up if you would like your name added to the email list admin.

On 5/11/19 7:24 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Thanks for the research Helena,
>
> It sounds like an OSGeo Special Interest Group will address our Lexicon
> Committee requirements. Unless there are any objections, I propose to
> push forward with our agenda of setting up an email list, building a
> committee, selecting a chair, and getting some work done.
>
> If you have any objections, please respond ASAP, ideally within the next
> 48 hours.
>
> --
>
> Further to Helena's research:
>
> * Yes, I'd suggest special interest groups should be listed on the website.
>
> * I found this page: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Interest_Groups which
> I'd suggest should be made official by the board. It currently states:
> "This page documents the current dicsussion and has not yet been
> approved as official OSGeo policy!"
>
> * The OSGeo Standards Committee should get a page somewhere. I'm pretty
> sure it had one before, but I can't find it now.
>
> On 2/11/19 1:22 pm, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>> I looked into this a little bit and I did not find any Standards
>> committee here
>> https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Main_Page
>> https://www.osgeo.org/about/board/
>>
>> But I found OSGeo Standards special interest group and associated
>> mailing list:
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Special-Interest-Groups-f5179645.html
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Standards-f5012448.html
>> Interestingly enough, I could not find the special interest groups on
>> the new website - is it something that should be added there?
>>
>> I don’t think that board vote is needed to establish a special
>> interest group and mailing list,
>> But the board can voice support and endorsement - I would like to
>> voice my support here if the special interest group is the way to go.
>>
>> Cameron, if you think that it would be better to have Lexicon as an
>> official OSGeo committee (with everything that comes with it, see
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines), then apparently,
>>  the board needs to vote to approve the committee chair
>> according to the guidelines (which I believe are partially based on
>> the bylaws).
>>
>> I hope this clarifies the process somewhat and cameron please let us
>> know which way you would like to go,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the initiative, Helena
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Astroidex, Kalxas, Delawen, Helena, OSGeo Board,
>>>
>>> Do my answers below address your questions re setting up an OSGeo
>>> Lexicon committee?
>>>
>>> Within the next few weeks I'm hoping to reach out to those from the
>>> OSGeo community who have provided glossaries and are likely to be
>>> interested in joining a Lexicon committee. From that committee we can
>>> elect a chair.
>>>
>>> I'm prefer to have the OSGeo Board's blessing before progressing
>>> further. Is that something you'd be prepared to provide?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 30/10/19 10:17 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>> Hi Angelos, board,
>>>> That is a good question. Working the lexicon community within the
>>>> standards committee is something we should consider. While I
>>>> wouldn't want to rule it out as an option, I'd vote -0 for it.
>>>> My reasoning:
>>>> * The lexicon committee is only focusing on one very narrow use case
>>>> within the greater OSGeo/Standards space.
>>>> * The standards committee has a very board focus across all
>>>> standards related use cases. In particular, it has focused on
>>>> managing the relationship between OSGeo and OGC.
>>>> * The lexicon committee will be very noisy within this very specific
>>>> lexicon use case. People interested in general standards will be
>>>> swapped with emails and I predict we will very quickly kill off any
>>>> other standards related conversations due to the noise.
>>>> * The standards committee is relatively quiet, and it could be
>>>> argued that we could consider retiring the standards committee and
>>>> restart it as a lexicon committee. I don't think this is the case. I
>>>> think the standards committee still has meaning and purpose.
>>>>
>>>> For these reasons, I believe the Lexicon and Standards committees
>>>> should be kept separate.
>>>>
>>>> For my next steps, I'm hoping to follow this process:
>>>> 1. Get endorsement from the board.
>>>> 2. Create a new [hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> email list
>>>> 3. Reach out to OSGeo projects and invite them to join the list and
>>>> participate in a committee
>>>> 4. Boostrap a lexicon committee
>>>> 5. Committee members to vote for a committee chair
>>>> 6. Start getting serious about the work we are doing.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping that the board can discuss via email, ask questions which
>>>> I'll answer, then we can set up a motion and help us move through
>>>> the steps above.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>
>>>> For reference, I've copied comments from the board meeting:
>>>> http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2019-10-28.log
>>>>
>>>> 16:22:49   helena_:        #7 Lexicon committee
>>>> 16:23:13   helena_:        they keep changing the name but it is an
>>>> important initiative
>>>> 16:23:37   astroidex:      just a question. Could it be part of one
>>>> existing committee?
>>>> 16:23:47   delawen:        (I'm back did I miss any voting?)
>>>> 16:23:50   kalxas:         I am wondering why this has to be a separate
>>>> committee from standards
>>>> 16:24:03   astroidex:      same for me
>>>> 16:24:06   kalxas:         delawen, no :)
>>>> 16:24:19   astroidex:      it could be part of education
>>>> 16:24:38   delawen:        if they feel they have enough work to be
>>>> isolated... see no reason why not
>>>> 16:24:43   astroidex:      https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
>>>> 16:24:44   sigq:   Title: Committees - OSGeo (at www.osgeo.org
>>>> <http://www.osgeo.org/>)
>>>> 16:24:44   kalxas:         given that OGC and ISO are involved, I think it
>>>> should be standards
>>>> 16:24:53   delawen:        but I would give them some time to do stuff
>>>> before making them official
>>>> 16:25:41   delawen:        If you think it should be standards, we can
>>>> answer them that
>>>> 16:25:41   kalxas:         also, we do need a chair to approve them, right?
>>>> 16:26:00   helena_:        Angelos - can you please get bcak to Cameron
>>>> with suggestion from the board to make it part of standards?
>>>> 16:26:25   astroidex:      good idea
>>>> 16:26:44   kalxas:         yes, I can follow up
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 02:30, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi Cameron,
>>>>
>>>>     The formation of the lexicon committee was discussed during the
>>>>     board
>>>>     meeting yesterday.
>>>>     One question that came up is: what is the reason this work
>>>>     cannot be
>>>>     done under the standards committee, since this involves members
>>>>     from
>>>>     OSGeo, OGC and ISO?

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

Location Powers: Data Science
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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Nicholas Car
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter

Hi all,

 

I would like to nominate to join the Lexicon Committee.

 

Some of you will be familiar with my previous geo- standards work at organisations such as Geoscience Australia and now the Geological Survey of Queensland. I’ve also worked on Semantic Web, vocabulary and spatial services and standards for about a decade at CSIRO, Australia’s federal government research agency.

 

Currently I’m working on spatial Semantic Web projects such as the Location Index [1], a better Semantic Web version of ISO19160, the ISO addressing standard [2], and spatial/geo vocabulary publication regimes, such as the Place Names Gazetteer of Australia. These all involve many vocabularies and terms. Part of my current project’s work is to extend two spatial cataloguing tools you surely all know well, GeoNetwork & CKAN, to enable them to better utilise formal vocabularies and also to increase their ability to play by Semantic Web protocols, such as the new Content Negotiation by profile [3]. I’ve also built both ontology and vocabulary publication and management tools, e.g. VocPrez [4] and published 50+ formal vocabularies for various government agencies and companies. E.g. the G-NAF codes [5]. I also currently co-chair, and am the main publication facilitator of, the Australian Government Linked Data Working Group [6] that maintains persistent identifiers and publishes Semantic Web datasets, ontologies and vocabularies.

 

Due to these experiences and current work, I think I could make useful contributions to this committee as you seek to “develop consistent terminology between OSGeo projects”.

 

Thanks,

 

Nick

 

 

Nicholas Car

Data Systems Architect

at SURROUND Australia Pty Ltd

PO Box 86, Mawson Canberra, 2607 Australia

https://surroundaustralia.com

 

[hidden email]

+61 477 560 177

 

Enhancing Intelligence Within Organisations

Delivering evidence that connects decisions to outcomes

 

 

[1] http://locationindex.org

[2] http://www.linked.data.gov.au/def/iso19160-1-address/

[3] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/connegp/

[4] http://www.linked.data.gov.au/, see it in action https://vocabs.gsq.digital/

[5] https://gnafld.net/def/gnaf/code/AddressTypes

[6] http://www.linked.data.gov.au/

 

 

 

From: Standards <[hidden email]> on behalf of Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 7 November 2019 at 8:10 am
To: Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Board <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

 

Thanks for the research Helena,

It sounds like an OSGeo Special Interest Group will address our Lexicon Committee requirements. Unless there are any objections, I propose to push forward with our agenda of setting up an email list, building a committee, selecting a chair, and getting some work done.

If you have any objections, please respond ASAP, ideally within the next 48 hours.

--

Further to Helena's research:

* Yes, I'd suggest special interest groups should be listed on the website.

* I found this page: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Interest_Groups which I'd suggest should be made official by the board. It currently states: "This page documents the current dicsussion and has not yet been approved as official OSGeo policy!"

* The OSGeo Standards Committee should get a page somewhere. I'm pretty sure it had one before, but I can't find it now.

On 2/11/19 1:22 pm, Helena Mitasova wrote:

I looked into this a little bit and I did not find any Standards committee here

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Main_Page

 

But I found OSGeo Standards special interest group and associated mailing list:

Interestingly enough, I could not find the special interest groups on the new website - is it something that should be added there?

 

I don’t think that board vote is needed to establish a special interest group and mailing list,

But the board can voice support and endorsement - I would like to voice my support here if the special interest group is the way to go.

 

Cameron, if you think that it would be better to have Lexicon as an official OSGeo committee (with everything that comes with it, see

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines), then apparently,  the board needs to vote to approve the committee chair 

according to the guidelines (which I believe are partially based on the bylaws).

 

I hope this clarifies the process somewhat and cameron please let us know which way you would like to go,

 

Thanks a lot for the initiative, Helena

 

On Nov 1, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Astroidex, Kalxas, Delawen, Helena, OSGeo Board,

Do my answers below address your questions re setting up an OSGeo Lexicon committee?

Within the next few weeks I'm hoping to reach out to those from the OSGeo community who have provided glossaries and are likely to be interested in joining a Lexicon committee. From that committee we can elect a chair.

I'm prefer to have the OSGeo Board's blessing before progressing further. Is that something you'd be prepared to provide?

Cheers, Cameron

On 30/10/19 10:17 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Angelos, board,

That is a good question. Working the lexicon community within the standards committee is something we should consider. While I wouldn't want to rule it out as an option, I'd vote -0 for it.

My reasoning:

* The lexicon committee is only focusing on one very narrow use case within the greater OSGeo/Standards space.

* The standards committee has a very board focus across all standards related use cases. In particular, it has focused on managing the relationship between OSGeo and OGC.

* The lexicon committee will be very noisy within this very specific lexicon use case. People interested in general standards will be swapped with emails and I predict we will very quickly kill off any other standards related conversations due to the noise.

* The standards committee is relatively quiet, and it could be argued that we could consider retiring the standards committee and restart it as a lexicon committee. I don't think this is the case. I think the standards committee still has meaning and purpose.

 

For these reasons, I believe the Lexicon and Standards committees should be kept separate. 

 

For my next steps, I'm hoping to follow this process:

1. Get endorsement from the board.

2. Create a new [hidden email] email list

3. Reach out to OSGeo projects and invite them to join the list and participate in a committee

4. Boostrap a lexicon committee

5. Committee members to vote for a committee chair

6. Start getting serious about the work we are doing.

 

I'm hoping that the board can discuss via email, ask questions which I'll answer, then we can set up a motion and help us move through the steps above.

 

Warm regards, Cameron

 

For reference, I've copied comments from the board meeting:

 

16:22:49

helena_:

#7 Lexicon committee

16:23:13

helena_:

they keep changing the name but it is an important initiative

16:23:37

astroidex:

just a question. Could it be part of one existing committee?

16:23:47

delawen:

(I'm back did I miss any voting?)

16:23:50

kalxas:

I am wondering why this has to be a separate committee from standards

16:24:03

astroidex:

same for me

16:24:06

kalxas:

delawen, no :)

16:24:19

astroidex:

it could be part of education

16:24:38

delawen:

if they feel they have enough work to be isolated... see no reason why not

16:24:43

astroidex:

https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/

16:24:44

sigq:

Title: Committees - OSGeo (at www.osgeo.org)

16:24:44

kalxas:

given that OGC and ISO are involved, I think it should be standards

16:24:53

delawen:

but I would give them some time to do stuff before making them official

16:25:41

delawen:

If you think it should be standards, we can answer them that

16:25:41

kalxas:

also, we do need a chair to approve them, right?

16:26:00

helena_:

Angelos - can you please get bcak to Cameron with suggestion from the board to make it part of standards?

16:26:25

astroidex:

good idea

16:26:44

kalxas:

yes, I can follow up

 

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 02:30, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Cameron,

The formation of the lexicon committee was discussed during the board
meeting yesterday.
One question that came up is: what is the reason this work cannot be
done under the standards committee, since this involves members from
OSGeo, OGC and ISO?

Regards,
Angelos

On 10/24/19 12:16 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Angelos,
>
> We haven't discussed selecting a chair of the committee yet, but I
> will be suggesting Reese and/or Ron as we bootstrap this committee.
> They both have been been very active in setting up this initiative and
> come with lots of experience.
>
> On 22/10/19 10:47 pm, Victoria Rautenbach wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> This is a great initiative, thank you Cameron and Reese. I fully
>> support this initiative and working with the ISO/TC 211 TMG on their
>> mature terminology database.
>>
>> Reese, will be great to work with you again!
>>
>> Regards
>> Victoria
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Angelos Tzotsos
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>> Have you decided on a committee chair?
>>> Who will be the point of contact for the board?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Angelos
>>>
>>> On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> OSGeo Board,
>>>
>>> On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board
>>> agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo
>>> Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during
>>> this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in
>>> person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them
>>> before hand in this email thread.
>>>
>>> We have started a wiki page for the committee here:
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think
>>> this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese
>>> (Tokyo).
>>>
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734
>>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this
>>> proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting
>>> coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an
>>> interest and an opinion.
>>>
>>> On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
>>> I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC
>>>
>>> On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are
>>> in this Asian/Australia timezone.
>>>
>>> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite
>>> easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with
>>> the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>>>
>>> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me,
>>> local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can
>>> do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry
>>> about this time.
>>> reese
>>>
>>>
>>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>>      From:
>>>      "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>      To:
>>>      "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>>> <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>>> <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Cc:
>>>      "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Sent:
>>>      Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>>>      Subject:
>>>      Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>>>      osgeo-standards ....
>>>
>>>
>>>      Hi all,
>>>
>>>      Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>>>      discuss this issue?
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>>
>>>      Regards,
>>>      Angelos
>>>
>>>      On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>          OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>>
>>>          I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>>>          have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>>>          I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>>>          Committee.
>>>
>>>          I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>>>          requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>>>          committee here:
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>>
>>>          Comments welcomed.
>>>
>>>          On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>>
>>>              Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>>              Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>>>              to reflect your comments below.
>>>
>>>              I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>>>              OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>>>              already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>>>              seems pretty committed already :-)
>>>
>>>              Ron
>>>
>>>              ———
>>>
>>>              Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>>
>>>              1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>>
>>>              ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>>>              terminology management. The existence of this group is
>>>              crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>>>              It will play two essential roles:
>>>
>>>              a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>>>              contributions
>>>              b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>>>              alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>>>              terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>>
>>>              It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>>>              211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>>>              experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>>>              in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>>>              alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>>
>>>              An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>>>              communication.
>>>
>>>
>>>              2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology
>>> management.
>>>
>>>              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 should be openly
>>>              shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>>>              criteria.
>>>
>>>              Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>>>              database at any time. The terminology management group
>>>              shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>>>              within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>>>              with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>>>              mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>>
>>>              For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>>>              as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>>>              proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>>>              terminology management.
>>>
>>>              The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>>>              determined and announced so that contributors understand
>>>              the necessary processes and timeline.
>>>
>>>
>>>              3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>>
>>>              Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>>>              means people need to first know they exist and what they
>>>              mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>>>              ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>>>              multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>>>              on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>>>              use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>>>              managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>>>              serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>>>              in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>>>              consume the content.
>>>
>>>              The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>>>              streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>>>              structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>>>              to the website. The website operates according to best
>>>              practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>>>              search functionality. Security and performance have always
>>>              been key considerations.
>>>
>>>              For terms that originate from other authoritative
>>>              terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>>>              linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>>>              database back to the source.
>>>
>>>
>>>              4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>>>              functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>>>              GitHub).
>>>
>>>              The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>>>              between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>>>              every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>>>              minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>>>              used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>>
>>>              There are generally two types of contributors:
>>>
>>>              a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>>>              b) 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 in formatting
>>>              the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>>>              allows the terminology management group to directly
>>>              approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>>>              (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>>>              single click.
>>>
>>>
>>>              5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>>
>>>              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.
>>>
>>>
>>>              6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>>
>>>              The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>>>              from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>>>              compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>>>              conversion from table format into the desired structured
>>>              data format.
>>>
>>>              The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>>>              Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>>
>>>
>>>              _____________________________________
>>>
>>>              Ronald Tse
>>>              Ribose Inc.
>>>
>>>                  On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>                  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/
>>> <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/
>>> <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:
>>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>>
>>>                  (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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              _______________________________________________
>>>              Standards mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>
>>>
>>>      Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Charter Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Technology Demystifier
>>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>>
>>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>> Charter Member
>>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>


--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos


 

--

Cameron Shorter

Technology Demystifier

Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

 

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

 

 

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

 

Helena Mitasova

Professor, Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Faculty Fellow,
Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208

 

 

 

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Ronald Tse
Hi Nicholas,

Thank you for the interest in the Lexicon Committee, and I would strongly support your nomination to join. 

It is interesting to learn of your work with ISO 19160 especially since we currently lead ISO 19160-6 at ISO/TC 211. The OSGeo Geolexica site, which is in development (https://osgeodev.geolexica.org/) intends to support the Content Negotiation by profile standard as well as providing SKOS in JSON-LD form.

Kind regards,
Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

On Nov 7, 2019, at 6:04 PM, Nicholas Car <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,
 
I would like to nominate to join the Lexicon Committee.
 
Some of you will be familiar with my previous geo- standards work at organisations such as Geoscience Australia and now the Geological Survey of Queensland. I’ve also worked on Semantic Web, vocabulary and spatial services and standards for about a decade at CSIRO, Australia’s federal government research agency.
 
Currently I’m working on spatial Semantic Web projects such as the Location Index [1], a better Semantic Web version of ISO19160, the ISO addressing standard [2], and spatial/geo vocabulary publication regimes, such as the Place Names Gazetteer of Australia. These all involve many vocabularies and terms. Part of my current project’s work is to extend two spatial cataloguing tools you surely all know well, GeoNetwork & CKAN, to enable them to better utilise formal vocabularies and also to increase their ability to play by Semantic Web protocols, such as the new Content Negotiation by profile [3]. I’ve also built both ontology and vocabulary publication and management tools, e.g. VocPrez [4] and published 50+ formal vocabularies for various government agencies and companies. E.g. the G-NAF codes [5]. I also currently co-chair, and am the main publication facilitator of, the Australian Government Linked Data Working Group [6] that maintains persistent identifiers and publishes Semantic Web datasets, ontologies and vocabularies.
 
Due to these experiences and current work, I think I could make useful contributions to this committee as you seek to “develop consistent terminology between OSGeo projects”.
 
Thanks,
 
Nick
 
 
Nicholas Car
Data Systems Architect
at SURROUND Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 86, Mawson Canberra, 2607 Australia
 
+61 477 560 177
 
Enhancing Intelligence Within Organisations
Delivering evidence that connects decisions to outcomes
 
 
 
 
 
From: Standards <[hidden email]> on behalf of Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, 7 November 2019 at 8:10 am
To: Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]>
Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Board <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
 

Thanks for the research Helena,

It sounds like an OSGeo Special Interest Group will address our Lexicon Committee requirements. Unless there are any objections, I propose to push forward with our agenda of setting up an email list, building a committee, selecting a chair, and getting some work done.

If you have any objections, please respond ASAP, ideally within the next 48 hours.

--

Further to Helena's research:

* Yes, I'd suggest special interest groups should be listed on the website.

* I found this page: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Interest_Groups which I'd suggest should be made official by the board. It currently states: "This page documents the current dicsussion and has not yet been approved as official OSGeo policy!"

* The OSGeo Standards Committee should get a page somewhere. I'm pretty sure it had one before, but I can't find it now.

On 2/11/19 1:22 pm, Helena Mitasova wrote:
I looked into this a little bit and I did not find any Standards committee here
 
But I found OSGeo Standards special interest group and associated mailing list:
Interestingly enough, I could not find the special interest groups on the new website - is it something that should be added there?
 
I don’t think that board vote is needed to establish a special interest group and mailing list,
But the board can voice support and endorsement - I would like to voice my support here if the special interest group is the way to go.
 
Cameron, if you think that it would be better to have Lexicon as an official OSGeo committee (with everything that comes with it, see
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines), then apparently,  the board needs to vote to approve the committee chair 
according to the guidelines (which I believe are partially based on the bylaws).
 
I hope this clarifies the process somewhat and cameron please let us know which way you would like to go,
 
Thanks a lot for the initiative, Helena
 
On Nov 1, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
Astroidex, Kalxas, Delawen, Helena, OSGeo Board,
Do my answers below address your questions re setting up an OSGeo Lexicon committee?
Within the next few weeks I'm hoping to reach out to those from the OSGeo community who have provided glossaries and are likely to be interested in joining a Lexicon committee. From that committee we can elect a chair.
I'm prefer to have the OSGeo Board's blessing before progressing further. Is that something you'd be prepared to provide?
Cheers, Cameron
On 30/10/19 10:17 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Hi Angelos, board,
That is a good question. Working the lexicon community within the standards committee is something we should consider. While I wouldn't want to rule it out as an option, I'd vote -0 for it.
My reasoning:
* The lexicon committee is only focusing on one very narrow use case within the greater OSGeo/Standards space.
* The standards committee has a very board focus across all standards related use cases. In particular, it has focused on managing the relationship between OSGeo and OGC.
* The lexicon committee will be very noisy within this very specific lexicon use case. People interested in general standards will be swapped with emails and I predict we will very quickly kill off any other standards related conversations due to the noise.
* The standards committee is relatively quiet, and it could be argued that we could consider retiring the standards committee and restart it as a lexicon committee. I don't think this is the case. I think the standards committee still has meaning and purpose.
 
For these reasons, I believe the Lexicon and Standards committees should be kept separate. 
 
For my next steps, I'm hoping to follow this process:
1. Get endorsement from the board.
2. Create a new [hidden email] email list
3. Reach out to OSGeo projects and invite them to join the list and participate in a committee
4. Boostrap a lexicon committee
5. Committee members to vote for a committee chair
6. Start getting serious about the work we are doing.
 
I'm hoping that the board can discuss via email, ask questions which I'll answer, then we can set up a motion and help us move through the steps above.
 
Warm regards, Cameron
 
For reference, I've copied comments from the board meeting:
 
16:22:49
helena_:
#7 Lexicon committee
16:23:13
helena_:
they keep changing the name but it is an important initiative
16:23:37
astroidex:
just a question. Could it be part of one existing committee?
16:23:47
delawen:
(I'm back did I miss any voting?)
16:23:50
kalxas:
I am wondering why this has to be a separate committee from standards
16:24:03
astroidex:
same for me
16:24:06
kalxas:
delawen, no :)
16:24:19
astroidex:
it could be part of education
16:24:38
delawen:
if they feel they have enough work to be isolated... see no reason why not
16:24:43
astroidex:
16:24:44
sigq:
Title: Committees - OSGeo (at www.osgeo.org)
16:24:44
kalxas:
given that OGC and ISO are involved, I think it should be standards
16:24:53
delawen:
but I would give them some time to do stuff before making them official
16:25:41
delawen:
If you think it should be standards, we can answer them that
16:25:41
kalxas:
also, we do need a chair to approve them, right?
16:26:00
helena_:
Angelos - can you please get bcak to Cameron with suggestion from the board to make it part of standards?
16:26:25
astroidex:
good idea
16:26:44
kalxas:
yes, I can follow up
 
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 02:30, Angelos Tzotsos <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Cameron,

The formation of the lexicon committee was discussed during the board 
meeting yesterday.
One question that came up is: what is the reason this work cannot be 
done under the standards committee, since this involves members from 
OSGeo, OGC and ISO?

Regards,
Angelos

On 10/24/19 12:16 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Angelos,
>
> We haven't discussed selecting a chair of the committee yet, but I 
> will be suggesting Reese and/or Ron as we bootstrap this committee. 
> They both have been been very active in setting up this initiative and 
> come with lots of experience.
>
> On 22/10/19 10:47 pm, Victoria Rautenbach wrote:
>> Dear All
>>
>> This is a great initiative, thank you Cameron and Reese. I fully
>> support this initiative and working with the ISO/TC 211 TMG on their
>> mature terminology database.
>>
>> Reese, will be great to work with you again!
>>
>> Regards
>> Victoria
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Angelos Tzotsos 
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>> Have you decided on a committee chair?
>>> Who will be the point of contact for the board?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Angelos
>>>
>>> On 10/21/19 8:32 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> OSGeo Board,
>>>
>>> On behalf of Ron, Reese and myself, I've added an item to the board 
>>> agenda requested the board's approval for the setting up of an OSGeo 
>>> Lexicon Committee. Unfortunately none of us will be awake during 
>>> this meeting so will not be in a position to discuss the proposal in 
>>> person. Hopefully if you have any questions you can raise them 
>>> before hand in this email thread.
>>>
>>> We have started a wiki page for the committee here: 
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Lexicon_Committee
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 19/10/19 4:15 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Angelos, the other end of the day would probably be easier. I think 
>>> this link shows board locations along with Ron (Hong Kong) and Reese 
>>> (Tokyo).
>>>
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=20&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734 
>>> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?year=2019&month=10&day=19&p1=240&p2=248&p3=102&p4=269&p5=250&p6=26&p7=37&p8=286&p9=734> 
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone else from the OSGeo board have an opinion on this 
>>> proposal and wish to share it? We could make the meeting 
>>> coordination easier if we narrow participation to only those with an 
>>> interest and an opinion.
>>>
>>> On 18/10/19 8:16 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In that case we should probably arrange a specific call for this topic.
>>> I think the only working timeslot would be around 20:00-22:00 UTC
>>>
>>> On 10/17/19 9:24 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> Angelos, the board meeting is 3am for me. The 3 of us involved are 
>>> in this Asian/Australia timezone.
>>>
>>> Reese, we can get you set up with IRC (Internet Chat Relay) quite 
>>> easily. It is text based only. Quickest way to get started is with 
>>> the web client: https://webchat.freenode.net/
>>>
>>> On 17/10/19 10:19 pm, [hidden email]wrote:
>>>
>>> hello Angelos, thank you for the invitation, two issues for me, 
>>> local time is 1am and i have never done Internet Relay Chat. i can 
>>> do skype or zoom. if you have another time/date let me know.  sorry 
>>> about this time.
>>> reese
>>>
>>>
>>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>>      From:
>>>      "Angelos Tzotsos" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>      To:
>>>      "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]>,
>>> <[hidden email]>, "[hidden email]"
>>> <[hidden email]>, "OSGeo Discussions" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Cc:
>>>      "Reese Plews" <[hidden email]>
>>>      Sent:
>>>      Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:14:37 +0300
>>>      Subject:
>>>      Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on
>>>      osgeo-standards ....
>>>
>>>
>>>      Hi all,
>>>
>>>      Would someone be available to join our next board meeting to
>>>      discuss this issue?
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2019-10-28
>>>
>>>      Regards,
>>>      Angelos
>>>
>>>      On 10/15/19 9:52 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>>          OSGeo Board, OSGeo Discuss,
>>>
>>>          I'd like to introduce you to this proposal that Ron and Reese
>>>          have been developing on the OSGeo Standards email list, which
>>>          I think should fit under the legal structure of an OSGeo
>>>          Committee.
>>>
>>>          I have vague recollections that setting up a committee
>>>          requires board approval? I've found some old tips on running a
>>>          committee here: 
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines
>>>
>>>          Comments welcomed.
>>>
>>>          On 15/10/19 4:47 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>>
>>>              Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>>              Thank you for the suggestions! I have updated the proposal
>>>              to reflect your comments below.
>>>
>>>              I would be honored to help with terminology management at
>>>              OSGeo. Can’t speak for Reese but with his leadership in
>>>              already doing terminology cleanup on Felicity’s sheet, he
>>>              seems pretty committed already :-)
>>>
>>>              Ron
>>>
>>>              ———
>>>
>>>              Recommendations for OSGeo terminology management
>>>
>>>              1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.
>>>
>>>              ISO/TC 211, IEC Electropedia and OGC all have one for
>>>              terminology management. The existence of this group is
>>>              crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database.
>>>              It will play two essential roles:
>>>
>>>              a) As the gatekeeper of terms to ensure quality checks of
>>>              contributions
>>>              b) As the seat of central terminology knowledge for
>>>              alignment of terms and concepts. To facilitate the flow of
>>>              terminology knowledge to terminology authors and users.
>>>
>>>              It would be helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC
>>>              211 and OGC in this group, in order to leverage their
>>>              experience in terminology. Such experience will be useful
>>>              in situations such as alerting on cross-organization
>>>              alignment of concepts or term duplication.
>>>
>>>              An email list shall be setup for this group for internal
>>>              communication.
>>>
>>>
>>>              2. Establish a terms of reference for terminology 
>>> management.
>>>
>>>              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 should be openly
>>>              shared with contributors so they are clear on acceptance
>>>              criteria.
>>>
>>>              Contributors may propose changes to the terminology
>>>              database at any time. The terminology management group
>>>              shall discuss and approve or disapprove of the proposal
>>>              within a reasonable timeframe. This practice is in-line
>>>              with the open source, change-based, rapid iteration
>>>              mantra, similar to OpenSSL.
>>>
>>>              For releases, the group shall convene periodically, such
>>>              as every 4-6 months, to discuss previously decided
>>>              proposals, governance or technical issues related to
>>>              terminology management.
>>>
>>>              The method of submitting change requests shall also be
>>>              determined and announced so that contributors understand
>>>              the necessary processes and timeline.
>>>
>>>
>>>              3. Establish an online terminology database presence.
>>>
>>>              Terminology isn’t useful until people use them, which
>>>              means people need to first know they exist and what they
>>>              mean. Geolexica is an initiative that currently serves
>>>              ISO/TC 211’s terminology management group in making its
>>>              multi-lingual geographic information terminology available
>>>              on the internet (https://www.geolexica.org). We propose to
>>>              use https://osgeo.geolexica.org/ to serve OSGeo in
>>>              managing its terminology database. Geolexica not only
>>>              serves human-readable concepts and terms, but also serves
>>>              in machine-readable JSON, allowing APIs to directly
>>>              consume the content.
>>>
>>>              The structure of Geolexica is designed for efficiency with
>>>              streamlined management and operations. Terms are stored in
>>>              structured data (YAML) files, and are directly deployable
>>>              to the website. The website operates according to best
>>>              practices, and is served as a static website with dynamic
>>>              search functionality. Security and performance have always
>>>              been key considerations.
>>>
>>>              For terms that originate from other authoritative
>>>              terminology databases, such as those from ISO or OGC, a
>>>              linkage shall be established from the OSGeo terminology
>>>              database back to the source.
>>>
>>>
>>>              4. Use an issue tracker with source code management
>>>              functionality as an open communication platform (e.g.
>>>              GitHub).
>>>
>>>              The issue tracker is used to perform two-way communication
>>>              between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires
>>>              every contributor to at least have an account, which helps
>>>              minimize spam. The source code management functionality is
>>>              used to manage terminology data in a machine-useable way.
>>>
>>>              There are generally two types of contributors:
>>>
>>>              a) those who suggest changes via textual description, and
>>>              b) 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 in formatting
>>>              the changes into a proper data structure change. This
>>>              allows the terminology management group to directly
>>>              approve, merge and deploy the proposed term modifications
>>>              (and creations, deletions), all made effective with a
>>>              single click.
>>>
>>>
>>>              5. Allow easy feedback from terminology users.
>>>
>>>              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.
>>>
>>>
>>>              6. Initial load and data cleanup.
>>>
>>>              The initial load of the terms will involve a bulk load
>>>              from the cleaned terms and definitions that Felicity has
>>>              compiled. Geolexica could easily handle the initial
>>>              conversion from table format into the desired structured
>>>              data format.
>>>
>>>              The cleanup process has already been started by Reese
>>>              Plews, convenor of the TMG at ISO/TC 211.
>>>
>>>
>>>              _____________________________________
>>>
>>>              Ronald Tse
>>>              Ribose Inc.
>>>
>>>                  On Oct 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>                  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/
>>> <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/
>>> <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:
>>> https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms
>>>
>>>                  (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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              _______________________________________________
>>>              Standards mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>
>>>
>>>      Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Charter Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cameron Shorter
>>> Technology Demystifier
>>> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>>>
>>> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>> Charter Member
>>> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>


-- 
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos


 
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
 

 

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
 
Helena Mitasova
Professor, Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Faculty Fellow,
Center for Geospatial Analytics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
 
 
 
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
 
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards


_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Ronald Tse
In reply to this post by Nicholas Car
Hi Nicholas,

Thank you for the interest in the Lexicon Committee, and I would strongly support your nomination to join. 

It is interesting to learn of your work with ISO 19160 especially since we currently lead ISO 19160-6 at ISO/TC 211. The OSGeo Geolexica site, which is in development (https://osgeodev.geolexica.org/) intends to support the Content Negotiation by profile standard as well as providing SKOS in JSON-LD form.

Kind regards,
Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

On Nov 7, 2019, at 6:04 PM, Nicholas Car <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,
 
I would like to nominate to join the Lexicon Committee.
 
Some of you will be familiar with my previous geo- standards work at organisations such as Geoscience Australia and now the Geological Survey of Queensland. I’ve also worked on Semantic Web, vocabulary and spatial services and standards for about a decade at CSIRO, Australia’s federal government research agency.
 
Currently I’m working on spatial Semantic Web projects such as the Location Index [1], a better Semantic Web version of ISO19160, the ISO addressing standard [2], and spatial/geo vocabulary publication regimes, such as the Place Names Gazetteer of Australia. These all involve many vocabularies and terms. Part of my current project’s work is to extend two spatial cataloguing tools you surely all know well, GeoNetwork & CKAN, to enable them to better utilise formal vocabularies and also to increase their ability to play by Semantic Web protocols, such as the new Content Negotiation by profile [3]. I’ve also built both ontology and vocabulary publication and management tools, e.g. VocPrez [4] and published 50+ formal vocabularies for various government agencies and companies. E.g. the G-NAF codes [5]. I also currently co-chair, and am the main publication facilitator of, the Australian Government Linked Data Working Group [6] that maintains persistent identifiers and publishes Semantic Web datasets, ontologies and vocabularies.
 
Due to these experiences and current work, I think I could make useful contributions to this committee as you seek to “develop consistent terminology between OSGeo projects”.
 
Thanks,
 
Nick
 
 
Nicholas Car
Data Systems Architect
at SURROUND Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 86, Mawson Canberra, 2607 Australia
 
+61 477 560 177
 
Enhancing Intelligence Within Organisations
Delivering evidence that connects decisions to outcomes
 
 


_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards