This is really great feedback, and I think it frames key problems to solve within our next phase of the geolexicon community.
I think part of what we need to solve is a process for updating terms which we can pass to projects and foundations to follow.
With regards to reaching out to communities, I think tapping into the OSGeoLive communication pipeline to projects will be very helpful there. I'm hoping Astrid, CCed, who has been doing this of late will be able to help.
There is a central role required for a community manager. Alessa Rock, a tech writing experienced with open source communities, has expressed an interest in this and I think would be great at it.
hello Cameron, very nice to hear from you. sounds like your new
position at google is working out well for you. very happy for you.
besides my own projects, i have been busy as editor with another ISO
project these past couple of months and also with the release of an
update to the TC211 MLGT which is now available in geolexica.
we had one meeting of the lexicon group to discuss the abbreviated
terms. there were a few people on the call. i tried to make some
categorizations but i wondered if that was the best way. i dont think
the google docs idea is working well on an open mail list. it could be
one issue why no one has participated much. Prof. Stubkjær had a
couple of observations and wanted to address some of those issues
before he worked on the file. and since i did not work on the file
either, nothing has really happened. after the summer i will try and
get the abbreviated terms finished. i have talked with Ron about how
to support those in geolexica.
however, those are just a file of abbreviated terms and acronyms.
there are a very small number of terms in that list which i separated
out early on.
to me the real issue that we discussed in one of our telecons was that
i just do not understand how terms (either currently in use or new)
will be submitted to the group for any management or discussion. the
group cannot really go out and look for terms. if the project teams
who are working on their own documentation are not extracting out
those term/def entries then it seems quite difficult to populate a
term registry. of course osgeo can/should use term/def entries from
other groups but, in the case of tc211's terminology, there are a lot
of terms that osgeo needs which are not going to be there. ogc will
have, in my understanding, a wider set of terms that osgeo can
perhaps the document link you sent explains some ways how those terms
can be picked up, perhaps the people doing technical writing for osgeo
projects will do that, i am not sure how that will work. the issue
about how terms will come into the group is the biggest issue for me
in really understanding how to move forward for osgeo. at least from
my work in tc211 i dont think the lexicon group should be the "writers
group" however i do understand there is a need to work together, if
there was such a group of writers. i can formulate, manage, and
discuss terminology entries but i am not skilled at creating complete
documentation for a software project...
the discussion from Rob is also very fascinating. i must admit so much
of it i do not understand. yet if there are no terms for the osgeo
group to manage i dont see how the linkages will be helpful for
osgeo... of course i see how they will be helpful for ogc and
hopefully one day the iso terms will be able to have such linkages...i
would hope everything is able to have some cross-relationships, but
again, i dont understand what it takes to get there.
i am sure you know but i will mention that tc211 members are now
voting to adopt a resolution at accepts OSGeo's request to be a
liaison to TC211. i expect the resolution ballot to pass. i think this
is an important step at least for having osgeo members learn more
about what tc211 is doing and for our terminology group will hopefully
be able to get these osgeo members more engaged in that group. it also
allows me to share things with osgeo members through the liaison
agreement. i hope there will be a couple of members from osgeo who are
willing to be liaisons to tc211.
i am looking forward to your "manifesto," and hope it will answer the
question about how terminology entries will come into the lexicon
group. i hope after reading, some of the other lexicon list members
will also want to be involved more with the group.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:40 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ron, Reese, Rob,
> A quick heads up that I'm seeing solid interest within The Good Docs Project writing community around Term management, and I'm expecting a few motivated and competent writing volunteers are about to come join the GeoLexicon project within the next few weeks.
> Also, I'm now working as a tech writer at Google, and have been discussing and getting early traction around a wide range of tech writing patterns and anti-patterns, along with tasks to address these. It is based around this essay, of which lexicon management is one topic.
> There is a time window between now and the end of this year when there will be a doc-blitz effort aligned with Google's Season of Docs where we have an opportunity to push a Geolexicon pilot forward. I'm hoping you might be in a position to be part of it?
> More to come on the public email list soon.
> Cameron Shorter
> Technical Writer, Google