We are interested to understand how you manage these acronyms, and
whether it would make sense to align with a similar OSGeo initiative.
On 26/9/19 9:01 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Felicity (CCed), one of the Tech Writers partaking in the Google
> Season of Docs, is going to compile a Glossary for us.
> Does anyone know of existing Glossaries that we can start from? I've
> found an OGC list of accronyms .
> This coming week (by 29 September) she will be collating existing
> material. In the following weeks, she'll be asking us to review and
> see what extra terms should be added.
> Beyond that, she will also be working reviewing our Quickstarts, and
> selecting a writing style guide. (The Google Syle Guide is a likely
> You can see results of her first pass .
> If you'd like to contribute, conversations are happening on the
> OSGeoLive email list , or you can email Felicity directly.
>  https://www.opengeospatial.org/acronyms > 
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jmSlp9GNwoPupeFJdjPsBnL7vqVG7AiWbWLEGOWEcy4/edit#slide=id.p1 >
>  https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeolive >
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
** Apparently Ron's email below bounced from the standards list. **
I like your suggestion, and your offer to help set it up fits well with
the "do-ochracy" principle of open source software. This can be the
first term to the glossary.
Do-ochracy: The principle where the person who volunteers to do the work
gets to decide how it gets done.
I guess the next step is to work out how to set this up, and I'm keen to
get some answers to my question below about what fields we should
collect for our first dataset that we use to seed the glossary.
On 28/9/19 2:18 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
> Thank you Cameron for bringing up this topic to the general list. Allow
> me to start with an introduction to myself, I am Ronald Tse, a member of
> ISO/TC 211’s TMG; our company Ribose operates ISO/TC 211’s MLGT online
> as Geolexica (https://www.geolexica.org), we are also a member of the OGC.
> I’ve had a discussion with Reese, the convenor of the TC 211 TMG on the
> topic and wanted to make some recommendations. Authoritative terminology
> is always tricky. Due to the nature of ISO terms provided in the TC 211
> MLGT, they can never be as responsive to the immediate needs of the
> community because they have to go through a defined process of
> standardization. Yet there is also a strong need with settling on
> terminology for unique concepts early on to facilitate innovation and
> We believe that for OSGeo and OSGeoLive, the motivation is to provide
> consistent terminology across OSGeo (OSGeoLive, projects, documentation,
> guides). Each organization has unique contexts and will need unique
> terms that may not be importable from external sources. OSGeo will be
> best served by an organization-wide glossary. That said, the content of
> the OSGeo glossary should maximize reuse of terms in current use,
> especially those from international and industry standards (ISO, OGC). I
> don’t think there is a conflict here as OGC (Scott) has previously
> stated the desire to reuse ISO terms.
> The suggestion to harmonize terminology fields is kind of a straw man;
> the terms supplied by ISO and OGC NA are mostly aligned (or at least
> supposed to be aligned). The key is how to facilitate OSGeo’s glossary
> to reference concepts provided by these term sources.
> Here’s our suggestion. The data in the MLGT is unlikely to directly
> accept crowdsourced terminology because it is a product of ISO/TC 211’s
> processes, work there will require a much longer (and larger) discussion
> amongst its experts and member bodies. However, Geolexica’s goal is
> really to have a way of displaying global geoinformation terminology,
> and is open to supporting extra glossaries.
> For example, we could create a separate site (e.g.
> https://osgeo.geolexica.org or whatever) with terms entirely supplied by
> OSGeo for the use of OSGeo. We could also help provide the necessary
> information for OSGeo to run such a site if necessary.
> This would easily support crowdsourced terms and give you a way to
> supply machine-readable terminology. It will give you what Geolexica
> provides today, a data model for concepts and terms, as well as the
> ability to directly refer to and source from ISO and OGC NA terms. This
> allows the OSGeo glossary to be flexible to change while providing
> authoritatively-sourced terms.
> Whether this proposal can be officially supported by ISO/TC 211 is a
> separate discussion that has to occur in the TC, but initially we
> believe the TC 211/TMG is open to the idea. Our company is happy to
> assist OSGeo with such a setup and its operation, if necessary, for the
> support of the OSGeo and in general open source initiatives. I’m sure
> Gobe would also be able to suggest collaborative next steps to perhaps
> allow importing OSGeo terms into the OGC NA (e.g. via machine import),
> or other ways of working together on terminology.
> What do you think?
> Kind regards,
> Ronald Tse
> Ribose Inc.
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
Keep in mind that the definition / examples / notes
can contain rich text, such as math equations, graphics, lists,
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein. If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think its fantastic to look at how OGC and ISO ’speak geo’ and if not unify, at least have some common ways of translation. Sound familiar? It is! The same old pattern, a bit like OGC standard-dom or pep8 (I can’t relate to ISO standards because I don’t have bandwidth to head there…)
I’d also like to see ‘do-ocracy' defined differently. This version:
Do-ochracy: The principle where the person who volunteers to do the work gets to decide how it gets done.
…to me looks like 'say-ocracy’.
A do-ocracy looks to me like a system whereby the person who volunteers to do work curates the work into existence taking into account the manifold points of view within the OSGeo ecosystem, winning some ideological battles and losing others along the way, and stepping back / allowing others to take the reins if there are blockages or bandwidth issues. In that spirit howvabout:
Do-ocracy: the principle where the person who volunteers to do work for an organisation works toward the completion of that work taking into account the diversity of views and values of the organisation
…which (IMO) covers ‘doing’ in terms of both personally doing, and ‘curating’ as in coordinating work if not doing personally.