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

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

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

Cameron Shorter
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.




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

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

Felicity Brand
I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0

As I understand it:
  • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
  • We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous - that aren't quite OSGeo specific.

Thanks
Felicity

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.




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

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

Bruce Bannerman-3
Hi everyone.

If we are to set up a taxonomy, I suggest that we also think about a process behind the inclusion of ‘authoritative’ terms. 

This will become important for the future use and re-use of this taxonomy.

Some items to think about:

  • Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?
  • What terms do we want included?
  • How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?
  • How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
  • Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

Thjis will become important as people come to rely on an OSGeo taxonomy.

Also, I fully endorse Ron’s comments about not reinventing the wheel and re-using existing taxonomies where possible.

Kind regards,

Bruce


On 30 Sep 2019, at 09:42, Felicity Brand <[hidden email]> wrote:

I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0

As I understand it:
  • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
  • We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous - that aren't quite OSGeo specific.

Thanks
Felicity

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[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: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Ronald Tse
Hi Felicity, Bruce,

Thanks for the great questions! As a noob to OSGeo, replies inline…

• Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)

If it is decided that the Google Sheet will serve as the authoritative data store for the glossary, we have the ability to pull from that to generate the site.

• Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?

It should be?

• What terms do we want included?

Probably all technical terms across OSGeo projects, I imagine that OSGeoLive documentation would provide a host of them?

• How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?

Maybe there should be some terminology group / list setup to vet these terms and their sources?

• How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
• Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

These actions relating to term lifecycle ought to be done by people (and probably consensus), especially since stability is arguably important. Some process should be required. Maybe a terms of reference for this terminology management list/group will be needed.

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi everyone.

If we are to set up a taxonomy, I suggest that we also think about a process behind the inclusion of ‘authoritative’ terms. 

This will become important for the future use and re-use of this taxonomy.

Some items to think about:

  • Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?
  • What terms do we want included?
  • How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?
  • How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
  • Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

Thjis will become important as people come to rely on an OSGeo taxonomy.

Also, I fully endorse Ron’s comments about not reinventing the wheel and re-using existing taxonomies where possible.

Kind regards,

Bruce


On 30 Sep 2019, at 09:42, Felicity Brand <[hidden email]> wrote:

I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0

As I understand it:
  • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
  • We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous - that aren't quite OSGeo specific.

Thanks
Felicity

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[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: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Carl Reed-2
In reply to this post by Felicity Brand
All -

There is a multi-lingual glossary of terms used in ISO and OGC standards


TC 211 regularly updates this document.

Regards

Carl

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:42 PM Felicity Brand <[hidden email]> wrote:
I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0

As I understand it:
  • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
  • We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous - that aren't quite OSGeo specific.

Thanks
Felicity

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.



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


--
Carl Reed, PhD
Carl Reed and Associates

Mobile: 970-402-0284

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend"

— Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Founding Father


_______________________________________________
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 Ronald Tse

Gobe, Carl, Scott,

I'm keen to hear the OGC weigh in on the geolexia approach being proposed. (Ideally before weighing in on the good questions below). In particular, I'd like to hear discussion about whether the OGC might adopt a similar approach, or set of processes, or adopt the same technology stack. I feel we wouldn't have done our due diligence if we were to propose advice to the OSGeo community without first getting endorsement from the OGC.

I think ISO TC211, the OGC, and OSGeo are key players here, and it would be good to have us all singing from the same songbook.

I'm also listening for lessons that we can take from the geospatial domain into general documentation guidance for all open source (and other) domains, through TheGoodDocsProject I'm helping set up.

Cheers, Cameron

On 30/9/19 9:23 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
Hi Felicity, Bruce,

Thanks for the great questions! As a noob to OSGeo, replies inline…

• Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)

If it is decided that the Google Sheet will serve as the authoritative data store for the glossary, we have the ability to pull from that to generate the site.

• Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?

It should be?

• What terms do we want included?

Probably all technical terms across OSGeo projects, I imagine that OSGeoLive documentation would provide a host of them?

• How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?

Maybe there should be some terminology group / list setup to vet these terms and their sources?

• How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
• Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

These actions relating to term lifecycle ought to be done by people (and probably consensus), especially since stability is arguably important. Some process should be required. Maybe a terms of reference for this terminology management list/group will be needed.

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi everyone.

If we are to set up a taxonomy, I suggest that we also think about a process behind the inclusion of ‘authoritative’ terms. 

This will become important for the future use and re-use of this taxonomy.

Some items to think about:

  • Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?
  • What terms do we want included?
  • How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?
  • How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
  • Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

Thjis will become important as people come to rely on an OSGeo taxonomy.

Also, I fully endorse Ron’s comments about not reinventing the wheel and re-using existing taxonomies where possible.

Kind regards,

Bruce


On 30 Sep 2019, at 09:42, Felicity Brand <[hidden email]> wrote:

I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0

As I understand it:
  • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
  • We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous - that aren't quite OSGeo specific.

Thanks
Felicity

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.



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



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

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

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

Ronald Tse
Hi Cameron,

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

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

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

Kind regards,
Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

On Oct 1, 2019, at 4:04 AM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gobe, Carl, Scott,

I'm keen to hear the OGC weigh in on the geolexia approach being proposed. (Ideally before weighing in on the good questions below). In particular, I'd like to hear discussion about whether the OGC might adopt a similar approach, or set of processes, or adopt the same technology stack. I feel we wouldn't have done our due diligence if we were to propose advice to the OSGeo community without first getting endorsement from the OGC.

I think ISO TC211, the OGC, and OSGeo are key players here, and it would be good to have us all singing from the same songbook.

I'm also listening for lessons that we can take from the geospatial domain into general documentation guidance for all open source (and other) domains, through TheGoodDocsProject I'm helping set up.

Cheers, Cameron

On 30/9/19 9:23 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
Hi Felicity, Bruce,

Thanks for the great questions! As a noob to OSGeo, replies inline…

• Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)

If it is decided that the Google Sheet will serve as the authoritative data store for the glossary, we have the ability to pull from that to generate the site.

• Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?

It should be?

• What terms do we want included?

Probably all technical terms across OSGeo projects, I imagine that OSGeoLive documentation would provide a host of them?

• How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?

Maybe there should be some terminology group / list setup to vet these terms and their sources?

• How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
• Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

These actions relating to term lifecycle ought to be done by people (and probably consensus), especially since stability is arguably important. Some process should be required. Maybe a terms of reference for this terminology management list/group will be needed.

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi everyone.

If we are to set up a taxonomy, I suggest that we also think about a process behind the inclusion of ‘authoritative’ terms. 

This will become important for the future use and re-use of this taxonomy.

Some items to think about:

  • Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?
  • What terms do we want included?
  • How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?
  • How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
  • Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

Thjis will become important as people come to rely on an OSGeo taxonomy.

Also, I fully endorse Ron’s comments about not reinventing the wheel and re-using existing taxonomies where possible.

Kind regards,

Bruce


On 30 Sep 2019, at 09:42, Felicity Brand <[hidden email]> wrote:

I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0

As I understand it:
  • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
  • We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous - that aren't quite OSGeo specific.

Thanks
Felicity

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.



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



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[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: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Hi Gobe,
I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external people can engage with this process.
However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.

On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211 and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.

So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and complementary processes).

Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a similar transport format "XML".
I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better with OGC's help.

After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video conference call.

Sound good?
Cameron


On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 23:50, Gobe Hobona <[hidden email]> wrote:
Cameron,

The OGC publishes definitions through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def

The definitions include, amongst others, terms from the OGC Glossary of Terms https://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/glossary

The glossary is represented in the Definitions Server by this resource http://www.opengis.net/def/glossary/

The RDF Turtle files used to populate the Definitions Server with the glossary are at https://github.com/opengeospatial/NamingAuthority/blob/master/definitions/conceptschemes/ogc_glossary.ttl

Once published, the definitions are available in RDF/XML, RDF Turtle, JSON-LD and a series of other formats. Some specific definitions, such as those for Coordinate Reference Systems are available in GML.

Any OGC member or Alliance Partner can submit a proposal for terms or names of resources to be registered. OSGeo is an alliance partner so can also submit a proposal. Upon receipt of the proposal, the proposal is discussed and voted on by the OGC-NA. The OGC-NA relies on subject matter experts from the Domain Working Groups and Standards Working Groups for guidance on whether to approve a proposal.

The Definitions Server has been developed to support implementors of OGC standards and also the work of the OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA), a subcommittee of the OGC Technical Committee. It’s procedures are at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=37800


The definitions are published through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def

Below the Definitions Server is infrastructure to support redirection and proxying to other registers (e.g. Sensor Model Registers, Coordinate Reference System registers, UoM registers etc).

OGC is not currently looking to replace the Definitions Server, nor the infrastructure on which it is built.

Some key lessons that we can share are that:
* The governance, policies and procedures (many of which are described in ISO 19135-1:2015) are very important. 
* The role of subject matter experts is also very important.

Regards,

Gobe
__________________________________________

Gobe Hobona, PhD MRICS
Director, Knowledge Management
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
OGC: Making location count.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/gobehobona
Tel: +44 744 409 6781
e-mail: [hidden email]
www.opengeospatial.org



On 30 Sep 2019, at 21:04, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gobe, Carl, Scott,

I'm keen to hear the OGC weigh in on the geolexia approach being proposed. (Ideally before weighing in on the good questions below). In particular, I'd like to hear discussion about whether the OGC might adopt a similar approach, or set of processes, or adopt the same technology stack. I feel we wouldn't have done our due diligence if we were to propose advice to the OSGeo community without first getting endorsement from the OGC.

I think ISO TC211, the OGC, and OSGeo are key players here, and it would be good to have us all singing from the same songbook.

I'm also listening for lessons that we can take from the geospatial domain into general documentation guidance for all open source (and other) domains, through TheGoodDocsProject I'm helping set up.

Cheers, Cameron

On 30/9/19 9:23 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
Hi Felicity, Bruce,

Thanks for the great questions! As a noob to OSGeo, replies inline…

• Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)

If it is decided that the Google Sheet will serve as the authoritative data store for the glossary, we have the ability to pull from that to generate the site.

• Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?

It should be?

• What terms do we want included?

Probably all technical terms across OSGeo projects, I imagine that OSGeoLive documentation would provide a host of them?

• How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?

Maybe there should be some terminology group / list setup to vet these terms and their sources?

• How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
• Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

These actions relating to term lifecycle ought to be done by people (and probably consensus), especially since stability is arguably important. Some process should be required. Maybe a terms of reference for this terminology management list/group will be needed.

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi everyone.

If we are to set up a taxonomy, I suggest that we also think about a process behind the inclusion of ‘authoritative’ terms. 

This will become important for the future use and re-use of this taxonomy.

Some items to think about:

  • Is this an authoritative OSGeo taxonomy?
  • What terms do we want included?
  • How do we define the ‘official’, authoritative definition of the term(s)?
  • How do we approve new terms? What process is required to do the approval?
  • Similarly, what process do we need to modify, retire or remove an existing ‘authoritative’ term?

Thjis will become important as people come to rely on an OSGeo taxonomy.

Also, I fully endorse Ron’s comments about not reinventing the wheel and re-using existing taxonomies where possible.

Kind regards,

Bruce


On 30 Sep 2019, at 09:42, Felicity Brand <[hidden email]> wrote:

I spent a few hours yesterday collating content from sources people had sent us into a spreadsheet. There's nearly 500 terms in there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19tulyAEDN5Q5n-u_jlmXIKQjPI2Lwv6fh5Orad1mz1I/edit#gid=0

As I understand it:
  • Before we can do any sort of bulk upload we'll need to add columns for the fields we're missing to comply with the required format. (For example, entry_status, authoritative_source, etc)
  • We'll need to review and cull terms that are generic or extraneous - that aren't quite OSGeo specific.

Thanks
Felicity

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:27 AM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Folks,
As per links below, Ron has set up an OSGeo Glossary system that we can play around with.
Feedback welcomed ...

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:51, Reese W. Plews <[hidden email]> wrote:
hello Cameron, good morning. no problem moving back to the mail list.
we just were not sure if you were ready that it be shown to your group
or not at this time.

the loading process for geolexica was built around the requirements of
the ISO MLTG excel file. moving entries into an excel file with the
same format would be the easiest way to load content. bringing them in
from another source would require code additions/modifications. Ron
can tell you where those modifications would be needed and i am sure
there are members in your group who could work up something that meets
your requirements. but if you have entries already in a list-like
form, putting them into excel is an easy way.

i was not aware of the other projects, but Ron may have heard of them
before. thank you for mentioning our work to them. if they are able to
make use of geolexica or some of the terminology management concepts
that we use within TC211 i think we are very happy.

will be in touch,

reese

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:30 AM Cameron Shorter
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Wow!!!
> I feel like it is Christmas. Thankyou.
> Do you mind if we take this email thread back on list?
> Assuming it is okay with you, I'd like to show it to the rest of the
> OSGeo community, and start talking about next steps with them.
>
> Questions will cover:
> 1. Do you have any suggestions for bulk uploading hundreds for existing
> terms? I suggest a tool be written to support that.
>
> 2. A few months ago, I've helped kick off TheGoodDocsProject [1], where
> a bunch of senior tech writers are building best practice templates and
> writing instructions for documenting open source projects. I think that
> you might have part of the answer to what goes into a "Glossary"
> template. So I'd like to introduce you to that email list too. [2]
>
> [1] https://thegooddocsproject.dev/
> [2] https://groups.io/g/thegooddocsproject/
>
> On 30/9/19 12:25 am, Ronald Tse wrote:
> > And the site branding has been somewhat updated with OSGeo branding.
> > We’ll refine the design in the days to come.
> >
> > Ron


From: Ronald Tse <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 23:08
Subject: Re: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....
To: Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]>
Cc: Reese Plews <[hidden email]>


Hi Cameron,

I’m happy to let you know the site is somewhat live (the design, not yet):

The first term there is your do-ocracy:

The repo is located at:

I’ve added some contribution instructions here, certainly they can be improved:

The deployment is automated. If you can provide your (and/or your team's) GitHub handle(s) I can add you to the group for direct access, especially for the addition of terms. 

Hope this helps!

Ron

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.



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



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254


Location Powers: Data Science - 90% early bird discount until October 15.
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


--
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 Cameron Shorter
<resending as my last email was too big for the list>

Hi Gobe,
I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external
people can engage with this process.
However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which
OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't
addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an
integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.

On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra
terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm
hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211
and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of
sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not
interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a
missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.

So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from
scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover
crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly
pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and
ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and
complementary processes).

Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC
definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a
similar transport format "XML".
I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I
feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the
spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better
with OGC's help.

After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a
video conference call.

Sound good?
Cameron



On 2/10/19 11:50 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:

> Cameron,
>
> The OGC publishes definitions through the OGC Definitions Server at
> http://www.opengis.net/def
>
> The definitions include, amongst others, terms from the OGC Glossary of
> Terms https://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/glossary
>
> The glossary is represented in the Definitions Server by this resource
> http://www.opengis.net/def/glossary/
>
> The RDF Turtle files used to populate the Definitions Server with the
> glossary are at
> https://github.com/opengeospatial/NamingAuthority/blob/master/definitions/conceptschemes/ogc_glossary.ttl
>
> Once published, the definitions are available in RDF/XML, RDF Turtle,
> JSON-LD and a series of other formats. Some specific definitions, such
> as those for Coordinate Reference Systems are available in GML.
>
> Any OGC member or Alliance Partner can submit a proposal for terms or
> names of resources to be registered. OSGeo is an alliance partner so can
> also submit a proposal. Upon receipt of the proposal, the proposal is
> discussed and voted on by the OGC-NA. The OGC-NA relies on subject
> matter experts from the Domain Working Groups and Standards Working
> Groups for guidance on whether to approve a proposal.
>
> The Definitions Server has been developed to support implementors of OGC
> standards and also the work of the OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA), a
> subcommittee of the OGC Technical Committee. It’s procedures are at
> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=37800
>
> Other policies are at https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/na
>
> The definitions are published through the OGC Definitions Server at
> http://www.opengis.net/def
>
> Below the Definitions Server is infrastructure to support redirection
> and proxying to other registers (e.g. Sensor Model Registers, Coordinate
> Reference System registers, UoM registers etc).
>
> OGC is not currently looking to replace the Definitions Server, nor the
> infrastructure on which it is built.
>
> Some key lessons that we can share are that:
> * The governance, policies and procedures (many of which are described
> in ISO 19135-1:2015) are very important.
> * The role of subject matter experts is also very important.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gobe


--
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 ....

Gobe Hobona
<Resending, now that I am subscribed to mailman>

Hi Cameron,

Yes, there are a number of updates to the OGC Glossary of Terms that are needed. We envisage updating the glossary in the coming year through a series of dedicated OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA) meetings.

The OGC Definitions Server is designed to cope with different vocabularies or terminology systems.

The URI of each term identifies the Authority (organisation) that originated the term.

The system integrates easiest with terminologies that are published in RDF encodings i.e. Turtle, JSON-LD or RDF/XML. Preferably the 3rd party terminologies should use the SKOS vocabulary for describing the relationship between terms.

The OGC-NA will hold a meeting on November 21st, 8:00 AM - 8:50 AM Toulouse local time. If you are interested I can add you to the agenda for a 10-minute remote presentation on OSGeo’s plans. Shall I add you to the agenda?

Regards,

Gobe



> On 3 Oct 2019, at 05:00, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> <resending as my last email was too big for the list>
>
> Hi Gobe,
> I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external people can engage with this process.
> However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.
>
> On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211 and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.
>
> So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and complementary processes).
>
> Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a similar transport format "XML".
> I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better with OGC's help.
>
> After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video conference call.
>
> Sound good?
> Cameron
>
>
>
> On 2/10/19 11:50 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:
>> Cameron,
>> The OGC publishes definitions through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def
>> The definitions include, amongst others, terms from the OGC Glossary of Terms https://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/glossary
>> The glossary is represented in the Definitions Server by this resource http://www.opengis.net/def/glossary/
>> The RDF Turtle files used to populate the Definitions Server with the glossary are at https://github.com/opengeospatial/NamingAuthority/blob/master/definitions/conceptschemes/ogc_glossary.ttl
>> Once published, the definitions are available in RDF/XML, RDF Turtle, JSON-LD and a series of other formats. Some specific definitions, such as those for Coordinate Reference Systems are available in GML.
>> Any OGC member or Alliance Partner can submit a proposal for terms or names of resources to be registered. OSGeo is an alliance partner so can also submit a proposal. Upon receipt of the proposal, the proposal is discussed and voted on by the OGC-NA. The OGC-NA relies on subject matter experts from the Domain Working Groups and Standards Working Groups for guidance on whether to approve a proposal.
>> The Definitions Server has been developed to support implementors of OGC standards and also the work of the OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA), a subcommittee of the OGC Technical Committee. It’s procedures are at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=37800
>> Other policies are at https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/na
>> The definitions are published through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def
>> Below the Definitions Server is infrastructure to support redirection and proxying to other registers (e.g. Sensor Model Registers, Coordinate Reference System registers, UoM registers etc).
>> OGC is not currently looking to replace the Definitions Server, nor the infrastructure on which it is built.
>> Some key lessons that we can share are that:
>> * The governance, policies and procedures (many of which are described in ISO 19135-1:2015) are very important.
>> * The role of subject matter experts is also very important.
>> Regards,
>> Gobe
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254


--
*Location Powers: Data Science*
<http://www.locationpowers.net/events/1911california/> - 90% early bird
discount until October 15.
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 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/LP_DS>
_______________________________________________
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

Thanks Gobe,

Yes, I think it would be valuable to add "OSGeo engagement" to the agenda, and have Ron, Reese or me talk to it.

In the interim, I propose that we collectively start fleshing out a proposed process for OSGeo glossary development, at this page: https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms

(Reach out to me if you have problems getting wiki access to this page)

On 6/10/19 8:41 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:
Hi Cameron,

Yes, there are a number of updates to the OGC Glossary of Terms that are needed. We envisage updating the glossary in the coming year through a series of dedicated OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA) meetings. 

The OGC Definitions Server is designed to cope with different vocabularies or terminology systems.

The URI of each term identifies the Authority (organisation) that originated the term. 

The system integrates easiest with terminologies that are published in RDF encodings i.e. Turtle, JSON-LD or RDF/XML. Preferably the 3rd party terminologies should use the SKOS vocabulary for describing the relationship between terms.

The OGC-NA will hold a meeting on November 21st, 8:00 AM - 8:50 AM Toulouse local time. If you are interested I can add you to the agenda for a 10-minute remote presentation on OSGeo’s plans. Shall I add you to the agenda?

Regards,

Gobe



On 3 Oct 2019, at 05:00, Cameron Shorter [hidden email] wrote:

<resending as my last email was too big for the list>

Hi Gobe,
I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external people can engage with this process.
However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.

On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211 and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.

So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and complementary processes).

Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a similar transport format "XML".
I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better with OGC's help.

After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video conference call.

Sound good?
Cameron



On 2/10/19 11:50 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:
Cameron,
The OGC publishes definitions through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def
The definitions include, amongst others, terms from the OGC Glossary of Terms https://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/glossary
The glossary is represented in the Definitions Server by this resource http://www.opengis.net/def/glossary/
The RDF Turtle files used to populate the Definitions Server with the glossary are at https://github.com/opengeospatial/NamingAuthority/blob/master/definitions/conceptschemes/ogc_glossary.ttl
Once published, the definitions are available in RDF/XML, RDF Turtle, JSON-LD and a series of other formats. Some specific definitions, such as those for Coordinate Reference Systems are available in GML.
Any OGC member or Alliance Partner can submit a proposal for terms or names of resources to be registered. OSGeo is an alliance partner so can also submit a proposal. Upon receipt of the proposal, the proposal is discussed and voted on by the OGC-NA. The OGC-NA relies on subject matter experts from the Domain Working Groups and Standards Working Groups for guidance on whether to approve a proposal.
The Definitions Server has been developed to support implementors of OGC standards and also the work of the OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA), a subcommittee of the OGC Technical Committee. It’s procedures are at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=37800
Other policies are at https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/na
The definitions are published through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def
Below the Definitions Server is infrastructure to support redirection and proxying to other registers (e.g. Sensor Model Registers, Coordinate Reference System registers, UoM registers etc).
OGC is not currently looking to replace the Definitions Server, nor the infrastructure on which it is built.
Some key lessons that we can share are that:
* The governance, policies and procedures (many of which are described in ISO 19135-1:2015) are very important.
* The role of subject matter experts is also very important.
Regards,
Gobe
-- 
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 ....

Gobe Hobona
Cameron, Ron, Reese,

I have added your 10-minute joint presentation to the OGC-NA’s November 21st meeting agenda.

I will send you the teleconference details when the details become available (most likely two weeks before the meeting).

Regards,

Gobe


On 6 Oct 2019, at 20:53, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks Gobe,

Yes, I think it would be valuable to add "OSGeo engagement" to the agenda, and have Ron, Reese or me talk to it.

In the interim, I propose that we collectively start fleshing out a proposed process for OSGeo glossary development, at this page: https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/wiki/Glossary%20terms

(Reach out to me if you have problems getting wiki access to this page)

On 6/10/19 8:41 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:
Hi Cameron,

Yes, there are a number of updates to the OGC Glossary of Terms that are needed. We envisage updating the glossary in the coming year through a series of dedicated OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA) meetings. 

The OGC Definitions Server is designed to cope with different vocabularies or terminology systems.

The URI of each term identifies the Authority (organisation) that originated the term. 

The system integrates easiest with terminologies that are published in RDF encodings i.e. Turtle, JSON-LD or RDF/XML. Preferably the 3rd party terminologies should use the SKOS vocabulary for describing the relationship between terms.

The OGC-NA will hold a meeting on November 21st, 8:00 AM - 8:50 AM Toulouse local time. If you are interested I can add you to the agenda for a 10-minute remote presentation on OSGeo’s plans. Shall I add you to the agenda?

Regards,

Gobe



On 3 Oct 2019, at 05:00, Cameron Shorter [hidden email] wrote:

<resending as my last email was too big for the list>

Hi Gobe,
I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external people can engage with this process.
However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.

On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211 and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.

So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and complementary processes).

Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a similar transport format "XML".
I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better with OGC's help.

After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video conference call.

Sound good?
Cameron



On 2/10/19 11:50 pm, Gobe Hobona wrote:
Cameron,
The OGC publishes definitions through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def
The definitions include, amongst others, terms from the OGC Glossary of Terms https://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/glossary
The glossary is represented in the Definitions Server by this resource http://www.opengis.net/def/glossary/
The RDF Turtle files used to populate the Definitions Server with the glossary are at https://github.com/opengeospatial/NamingAuthority/blob/master/definitions/conceptschemes/ogc_glossary.ttl
Once published, the definitions are available in RDF/XML, RDF Turtle, JSON-LD and a series of other formats. Some specific definitions, such as those for Coordinate Reference Systems are available in GML.
Any OGC member or Alliance Partner can submit a proposal for terms or names of resources to be registered. OSGeo is an alliance partner so can also submit a proposal. Upon receipt of the proposal, the proposal is discussed and voted on by the OGC-NA. The OGC-NA relies on subject matter experts from the Domain Working Groups and Standards Working Groups for guidance on whether to approve a proposal.
The Definitions Server has been developed to support implementors of OGC standards and also the work of the OGC Naming Authority (OGC-NA), a subcommittee of the OGC Technical Committee. It’s procedures are at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=37800
Other policies are at https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/na
The definitions are published through the OGC Definitions Server at http://www.opengis.net/def
Below the Definitions Server is infrastructure to support redirection and proxying to other registers (e.g. Sensor Model Registers, Coordinate Reference System registers, UoM registers etc).
OGC is not currently looking to replace the Definitions Server, nor the infrastructure on which it is built.
Some key lessons that we can share are that:
* The governance, policies and procedures (many of which are described in ISO 19135-1:2015) are very important.
* The role of subject matter experts is also very important.
Regards,
Gobe
-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254


Location Powers: Data Science - 90% early bird discount until October 15.
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: glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Ronald Tse
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Hi Cameron,

OGC and ISO have established structures and their processes may not perfectly fit the overtly-open model used by OSGeo.

As an open-source developer, my ideal workflow with OSGeo terminology management would follow an open proposal and feedback model, suited for an issue tracker like GitHub offers.

The vision is to allow crowd-sourcing of terms while tracking those from ISO, OGC or whatever authoritative source to prevent duplication.

This is what I’d propose:

1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.

Other than ISO, OGC, the Electropedia also has one, and it is especially important since quality checks will be crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database. It could be as simple as having two members “approve” new terms or updates; similar to how OpenSSL accepts contributions.

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 can also be openly shared with contributors so they know what to do.

In the terminology management group, it would be very helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC 211 and OGC members so they can tell you whether any newly proposed terms are problematic (e.g. duplication).

2. Use an issue tracker like GitHub (or similar) as an open communication platform.

This is used to perform two-way communication between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires every contributor to at least have an account, this helps minimize spam. There will be two types of contributors, those that purely suggest changes, and 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. This allows whoever of the management group that approves the term to directly “merge” in the changes to the database with a click.

3. Offer buttons to kickstart the feedback process.

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.

4. The linkage between the OSGeo terminology database back to ISO and OGC can be established for any terms that originated from those parties.

Does this help?

Kind regards,
Ron


_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

On Oct 2, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Gobe,
I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external people can engage with this process.
However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.

On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211 and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.

So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and complementary processes).

Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a similar transport format "XML".
I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better with OGC's help.

After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video conference call.

Sound good?
Cameron



_______________________________________________
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

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/ 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/ (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

On 10/10/19 2:40 pm, Ronald Tse wrote:
Hi Cameron,

OGC and ISO have established structures and their processes may not perfectly fit the overtly-open model used by OSGeo.

As an open-source developer, my ideal workflow with OSGeo terminology management would follow an open proposal and feedback model, suited for an issue tracker like GitHub offers.

The vision is to allow crowd-sourcing of terms while tracking those from ISO, OGC or whatever authoritative source to prevent duplication.

This is what I’d propose:

1. Establish a terminology management group in OSGeo.

Other than ISO, OGC, the Electropedia also has one, and it is especially important since quality checks will be crucial to the success of the OSGeo terminology database. It could be as simple as having two members “approve” new terms or updates; similar to how OpenSSL accepts contributions.

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 can also be openly shared with contributors so they know what to do.

In the terminology management group, it would be very helpful to involve representation from ISO/TC 211 and OGC members so they can tell you whether any newly proposed terms are problematic (e.g. duplication).

2. Use an issue tracker like GitHub (or similar) as an open communication platform.

This is used to perform two-way communication between OSGeo members and the contributors. This requires every contributor to at least have an account, this helps minimize spam. There will be two types of contributors, those that purely suggest changes, and 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. This allows whoever of the management group that approves the term to directly “merge” in the changes to the database with a click.

3. Offer buttons to kickstart the feedback process.

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.

4. The linkage between the OSGeo terminology database back to ISO and OGC can be established for any terms that originated from those parties.

Does this help?

Kind regards,
Ron


_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

On Oct 2, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Gobe,
I can see that you have documented the OGC process, and HOW external people can engage with this process.
However, I'm really looking for a Vision and Technical Roadmap which OSGeo can follow (re Terminology definitions). I feel you haven't addressed our OSGeo use case. And in particular, I'm not seeing an integration strategy between OGC and OSGeo.

On behalf of the OSGeo community, I'm offering to help source extra terminology, but I don't want to start a new incompatible system. I'm hoping we can set up something which seamlessly integrates with ISO 211 and OGC. And for that I'm asking for help. Think about the reality of sourcing terms from thousands of individuals. These people are not interested in managing a glossary, but would be fine with suggesting a missing term, or refining a definition - if we make the process easy.

So if you were to advise on setting up an OSGeo Terminology system from scratch what would you suggest? I'm thinking advice should cover crowdsourcing information, include a review process, and particularly pertinent to the OGC, should describe seamlessly integrate into OGC and ISO 211 systems (because we have agreed on the same field names and complementary processes).

Note: In my first 30 sec look I can see there are gaps in OGC definitions. I can't find an edge case word "GeoJSON", but can find a similar transport format "XML".
I can't find package names such as "QGIS". I'm sure there are more. I feel the OSGeo community could complement OGC hugely in supporting the spatial community around terminology - and we would be so much better with OGC's help.

After collating your thoughts, I suggest we should follow up with a video conference call.

Sound good?
Cameron


-- 
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 ....

Ronald Tse
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/ 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/ (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